By an order dated 12.3.1999, a learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the order of punishment and directed the disciplinary authority to issue a show cause numberice indicating the modified punishment and pass an appropriate order.
A show cause numberice was issued, pursuant to the said direction.
He was acquitted of the criminal charges.
Since the learned Single Judge, who decided Writ Petition No.
A perusal of the judgment dated 03.10.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Criminal Appeal No.
Thus he facilitated his wife to get undue pecuniary benefit by permitting unauthorized adjustments which were done with his prior knowledge.
By an order dated 29.12.1995, the appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against him in the criminal proceeding under Sections 120B, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
Another writ petition was filed by the respondent aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith.
15 He sanctioned and released loans to his close relatives in companytravention of H.O. Cir.
476 of 2001.
12 of 1996 makes it clear that the respondent was honourably acquitted with an unequivocal finding that there was neither any loss to the bank number any pecuniary benefit was taken by the respondent.
A Writ Petition was also filed questioning the said order of dismissal.
P. Lakshmi, his wife, from out of proceeds of loan amounts released to two DIR and one cash credit borrowers.
Only a minor penalty companyld be imposed .
The Writ Petition filed by the appellant against the order of dismissal passed against him came up for companysideration before a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
ADV/98 of 1976 dated the 2nd December, 1976.
Respondent, however, was companyvicted under Section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 5 1 d and 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He was also acquitted of the charges for alleged companymission of offences under Section 5 1 d read with Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
11 He authorized cash and transfer credits to the demand loan accounts against pledge of gold ornaments of Smt.
Respondent at all material times was an employee in the appellant Bank.
An appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent was dismissed.
The Enquiry Officer found that all the charges apart from charge Nos.
As regards, alleged companymission of offence under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code, it was stated From the above discussion, I am of the companysidered opinion that the appellant companyld number have made the alleged entries willfully and with dishonest intention to defraud.
The Division Bench, in its impugned judgment dated 4.06.2007, opined In the present case, we find that the enquiry officer had exonerated the respondent of charges 1 a , 2 b , 3 and 5, which pertain to misappropriation and deriving of pecuniary benefits by him.
The Appointing Authority passed an order of dismissal.
It has to be numbered that the above reasoning of the trial companyrt is most perverse and without any material.
An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed.
2961 2962 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
12 items of charges were drawn up charge Nos.
1 a , 2 b , 3 were proved.
He was placed under suspension on or about 13.8.1998.
14356 14357 of 2007 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant came up for companysideration before a learned Single Judge of the High Court and by a judgment and order dated 3.10.2001, it was held In such a case, it is difficult to believe that the appellant had any intention to benefit himself or other persons.
Thus, on the crucial issue whether the respondent is guilty of financial misfeasance and malfeasance, there is numberconflict between the findings of the enquiry officer and the Court, which disposed of the criminal appeal.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
11 and 15 whereof read as under Charge No.
A departmental proceeding was initiated against him.
Again an order of dismissal was passed on 2.7.1999.
An intra court appeal was preferred thereagainst.
He was also proceeded against in a criminal case.
He preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court.
In my companysidered view the trial companyrt had jumped to the companyclusion without any basis.
Appellant is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 4.6.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.
627/628 of 2005 whereby and whereunder it refused to interfere with the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court in WP No.
However, the departmental proceedings companytinued during pendency of the criminal proceedings as prayer for stay thereof was number acceded to.
Charge No.
