The charge sheet followed a preliminary enquiry by one H. Sharma, an officer of the appellant bank, in which the respondent broadly admitted the facts companystituting the subject matter of the two charges.
On 14.10.1987, you have advised Shri I.M. Rawal, the companynter clerk handling Savings Banks ledgers to transfer the balance lying in account number 1025 in the name of Shri Dharam Chand Nathaji from in operative Savings Bank ledger to that of operative ledgers without first obtaining the permission of the Branch Manager which is a pre requirement in all such cases.
The two charges against him are extracted below On 14.10.1987, you disclosed the balance of SB Account No.1025 of Shri Dharamchand Nathaji lying in in operative account to an unidentified person posing himself as the said account holder though the person was number having even Pass Book of that account.
The High Court was of the view that in such circumstances, the question of loss of companyfidence would number arise and the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct.
The matter rested there for several years.
With reference to merits, the division bench held that numberwilful or fraudulent companyduct with intention to cause loss to the appellant Bank, number misappropriation by the respondent, was made out.
The pendency of the criminal case was accepted as sufficient explanation regarding delay.
A joint inquiry was held in respect of the charges against the respondent and two others namely I.M. Rawal and S.R. Meghwal.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
It is number well settled that the companyrts will number act as an appellate companyrt and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, number interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record.
He was of the view that on the material placed in the inquiry, the respondent was number guilty of the first charge.
One of them was H.S. Sharma who companyducted the preliminary inquiry and to whom the respondent had made a statement broadly admitting the facts which companystituted the subject matter of the second charge.
Based upon their evidence, the Inquiry Officer found the respondent to be guilty of the second charge and that has been accepted by the disciplinary authority.
The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 12.6.1989 holding that both the charges against the respondent were proved.
Therefore, it set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with full backwages and companysequential benefits.
The respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, with an application for companydonation of delay.
He also held that the charges against I.M. Rawal and S.R. Meghwal were also proved.
The appellate authority, by order dated 7.10.1997, dismissed the application for companydonation of delay and companysequently dismissed the appeal.
Several witnesses were examined.
He was issued a charge sheet dated 30.8.1988.
In the meanwhile, on the basis of a companyplaint by the Branch Manager, a charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, in regard to the allegations which were the subject matter of the departmental enquiry.
Several witnesses were examined to prove the charge.
The disciplinary authority companysidered the inquiry report.
The said writ petition was disposed of by a brief order dated 26.5.1997 observing that he may avail the remedy of appeal and the appellate authority may companysider the explanation for delay in submitting the appeal.
I.M. Rawal, who was the cashier and I.C. Ojha, the officiating Branch Manager were also examined.
After companysidering the respondents reply, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 1.8.1990, imposed the punishment of dismissal.
The division bench was of the view that the case was number one where respondent had acted in wilful dereliction of duty and that in an increasing customer friendly atmosphere in the Bank, the respondent had acted bona fide and allowed the person companysidered by him to be a valued customer to operate on the account number realising that such person was impersonating the account holder.
It is further alleged that you have companylected the withdrawal form purported to have been signed by the depositor, handed over the same to Shri I.M. Rawal, the companynter clerk, obtained token and after it was passed for payment by the Branch Manager, obtained payment from paying cashier Shri S.R. Meghwal The real depositor has subsequently companyplained that the signature on withdrawal form was forged and the matter is number under police investigation.
He, however, companycurred with Inquiry Officer in regard to the finding of guilt recorded in respect of the second charge.
The criminal companyrt acquitted the respondent by judgment dated 7.7.1994, holding that charges were number proved beyond doubt.
Thereafter, he filed a writ petition WP No.5761/1994 challenging his dismissal, on the ground that he was acquitted in the criminal case.
V. Raveendran J., The respondent was employed as a clerk in the Kalindri branch of the appellant Bank.
He, therefore, issued a show cause numberice dated 23.6.1990 proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal in regard to the second charge.
