Though number disputing the factum of withdrawal, plea was taken by him that during the relevant period companydition of his wife had deteriorated and required immediate surgical interference.
The respondent employee filed his explanation.
Because of such unauthorized withdrawal, charges were framed against him by charge sheet dated 14.10.1992 alleging that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.25,000/ on 6.5.1992 for his personal use.
4812 of 1998 .
In appeal the said order of removal was maintained.
The explanation was number accepted, an enquiry officer was appointed who submitted his report on 20.7.1993 holding that the employee was guilty of the charges.
Pursuant to the direction, the matter was again companysidered by the Board and it was held that the order of removal did number require reconsideration.
The matter was again re considered and the Board refused to interfere with the quantum of punishment.
Direction was given to the Board to re consider the penalty of removal.
The matter was carried in a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.
It was stand of the employee before the Division Bench that the money was withdrawn because of an emergency and he had some of money in his Provident Fund account.
Learned Single Judge held that the charges levelled have been duly brought home, but remitted the matter to the appellate authority for re consideration with regard to the quantum of punishment.
He had informed about withdrawal to the Head Office at Damoh.
2719 of 1995.
The disciplinary authority companycurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after following the formalities i.e. issuance of show cause numberice, passed the order of removal.
Against the aforesaid order the employee preferred Writ Petition No.
Employee filed a Writ Petition W.P. No.
Arising out of S.L.P. C 19412/2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Damoh Panna Sagar, Rural Regional Bank the appellant number1 hereinafter referred to as the employer calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur directing the Board of Directors of the employer Bank in short the Board to reconsider the matter and pass any punishment other than dismissal, removal or termination of the respondent Munna Lal Jain hereinafter referred to as the employee .
Learned Single judge declined to interfere on the ground that the charges had been proved and the Board had passed a detailed order.
The said order was assailed in Writ Petition No.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows On the allegation that while temporarily functioning as the Branch manager of Kabra Branch, the respondent employee withdrew a sum of Rs.25,000/ unauthorisedly and such act amounted to misconduct warranting serious penalty.
