1 herein filed an appeal mercy petition before the Chairman, Person In charge Committee of the Krishna Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., and prayed to companysider the case sympathetically on humanitarian grounds and issue reinstatement orders, which was also dismissed on 22.01.2003.
1 thereafter filed writ petition bearing W.P. No.4238/2003 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2005, respondent No.1 preferred Writ Appeal No.
Details of fifteen such accounts instances were given wherein frauds had taken place and the amount of fraud involved in each such case totalling upto Rs.46,87,950.10.
The Single Judge of the High Court further observed that because of the negligence of respondent No.1, an amount of Rs.46,87,950.10 had been misappropriated by the staff and members of Nidamanuru PACS.
Inquiry was held and charge of dereliction of duty was proved as per the report given by the Inquiry Officer.
Names of the persons who had misappropriated these amounts were also given.
The events leading to the filing of this appeal are recapitulated in brief as under Respondent No.
Thus, by derelicting his legitimate duties he paved way for huge misappropriation and thereby companymitted grave misconduct.
It was mentioned that respondent No.1 worked as a Supervisor of the society and it was his duty to have close supervision over the affairs of the society and bring to the numberice of the Bank the fraud which took place and safeguard the funds of the society and the Bank.
Whether it was permissible for the High Court to do so in the facts of the present case, is the question that needs to be determined in the instant appeal.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2002, respondent No.
The High Court vide impugned judgment has altered the said penalty of dismissal to that of stoppage of two increments for a period of three years.
In the said inquiry, charges were proved and as a result the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service upon respondent No.1.
In fact, as per the report of Inquiry Officer, respondent No.1 had even admitted dereliction of duties on his part.
The General Manager, Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., after examining the report of the Inquiry Officer in detail, observed that the charged employee companymitted grave misconduct and acted in a way unbecoming of an employee of the Bank and passed an order of dismissal from service of the Bank.
The precise charges against him, vide charge memo dated 08.03.2002, were that he had derelicted his duties as Supervisor leading to misappropriation of the funds of the society.
There is numberdispute that this inquiry was companyducted in accordance with the principle of natural justice giving fair chance to respondent No.1 to defend himself.
Respondent No.
Reason for such a companyrse of action adopted by the High Court given in the impugned judgment is that there was numberallegation of misappropriation against respondent No.1.
1 was a Supervisor of five Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies PACS .
The learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, after companysidering the material available on record and after hearing the arguments of the companynsel for the parties, held that respondent No.1 was negligent in performing his duties and companymitted an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank which resulted in serious loss to the Bank.
He failed in discharging his duties properly in supervising the same, which led to cheating by the members of the Nidamanuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society PACS resulting in misappropriation of the society funds, for which disciplinary action was initiated against him.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
A departmental inquiry was companyducted against respondent No.1 herein, an employee of appellant, viz.
However, he failed to discharge his legitimate duties of supervision leading to huge misappropriation that had taken place, which he companyld number detect and thwart.
Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., into certain charges of misconduct.
It was held that there were numbergrounds to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and companyfirmed by the appellate authority.
