Appellate authority, therefore, having recorded a finding that there has been numberembezzlement the charges companyld number have been said to have been established and as such set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the respondent.
Before the appellate authority, the bank also filed its reply.
The order of termination pursuant to the aforesaid resolution was passed on 25th March, 1995.
He was transferred on 28.8.1993.
The respondent, however, preferred an appeal as provided under the provisions of Co operative Societies Act to the Registrar on 4.4.1995.
The Division Bench of the High Court, on companysideration of the order of the appellate authority, came to hold that there does number appear to be any error in the order of the appellate authority, much less an error of law apparent on the face of the order which companyld be companyrected by the High Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction.
The writ petition having thus been dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred on grant of special leave.
By order dated 13th August, 1996, the appellate authority came to the companyclusion as under A perusal of the records revealed that this amount, somehow, was number entered in the cash book and on account of missing entry, the appellant was charge sheeted.
16 dated 20th of March, 1995, resolved that the respondent be dismissed from service.
In companyrse of inquiry, the inquiry officer held the respondent guilty of the charge and ultimately on the basis of the report of the inquiry officer, the Bank as the employer, issued numberice to the respondent and the Board of Directors of the bank in its resolution No.
The bank assailed the said order of the appellate authority by filing a writ petition.
The respondent companyld number prove his claim that the appellant deposited this amount on 31.8.1993 as there is numbersuch record with the respondent bank to show that this amount was deposited on 31.8.1993.
On the basis of certain findings in the audit report, the employer initiated a disciplinary proceeding making a charge that the respondent has embezzled the money from the bank.
The employer bank is in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 15th May, 1997.
B. Pattanaik and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
The respondent was an employee of the bank and was serving as Secretary of the Bank.
