An enquiry was made into the companyrectness of the receipts and other documents produced by him in that companynection and into some other alleged irregularities companymitted by him and he was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry on five charges.
9,500.00 obtained from M s. Balram Hariram, Church Road, Dimapur, whereas you neither engaged a full truck number spent Rs.
CHARGE IV That during the period of your posting at our Phek Branch Your S.B. Account thereat showed frequent deposit by means of cash as well as transfer transactions.
8735/91 ORDER This appeal is preferred by the Slate Bank of India against the decision of the Gauhati High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.
CHARGE III That along with the Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs.
12,194.80p dated 10.2.82 you furnished a list of 19 packages of household items claimed to have been transported from Phek to Amarpur whereas only 8 packages of household goods were transported.
12.194.80p dated 10.2.82 you made another claim for Rs.
The charges read as follows CHARGE No.
Thus you have infringed Rules 32 1 , 32 4 of the State Bank of India Supervising Stall Service Rules.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority the Chief General Manager who held, after due enquiry that all the five charges are proved.
These deposits and various T.D. Rs.
By your above act again you have failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty devotion and diligence and violated Rule 32 4 of the State Bank of India Supervising Staff Service Rules.
I That on 10.2.82, you submitted a Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs.
60/ each obtained from one Shri Ram Prasad being the loading and unloading charges incurred for household goods at Phek and Amarpur respectively.
In the said bill you make a claim of Rs.
12,194.80p in companynection with your permanent transfer from Phek Branch to Amarpur Branch.
By your above act you failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and have violated Rule 32 4 of the State Bank of India Supervising Staff Service Rules.
The respondent was appointed as a Cashier in the appellant Bank in the year 1968.
Thus you knowingly furnished an inflated list of goods transported with an intention to derive undue pecuniary benefit and thereby infringed Rule 32 4 of the State Bank of India Supervising Staff Service Rules.
120/ supported by two false separate money receipts dated 9.2.82 for Rs.
and other assets acquired as detailed in the Statement of Allegation enclosed herewith, indicate that you were having assets disproportionate to your known sources of income the fact which reflect adversely on your companyduct which is unbecoming of a Bank official and thus you infringed Rule 32 4 of the State Bank of India Supervising Staff Service Rules.
9,500.00 being the hiring charges incurred by you for a full truck and in support of your claim you submitted a false money receipt dated 9.1.82 for Rs.
CHARGE II That in your Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs.
He was promoted to Officer Grade II and then to Grade I. While he was working at Phek Branch in Nagaland, he was promoted to the rank of Branch Manager and was transferred to Amarpur Branch in the State of Tripura in January, 1981, The appellant joined at Amarpur and claimed certain amount by way of reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him in shifting his belongings and other articles to Amarpur from Phek.
CHARGE V That while you were holding temporary charges of the Phek Branch you disbursed a companystruction loan to Shri Asong Snock in two instalments i.e. Rs.
10,000.00 on 10.5.81, without taking into account the progress of the companystruction of the building as instructed by Regional Office.
S.T.D. Rs.
The said loan was number utilised for the companystruction of the building and as a result of which the account become irregular.
He imposed the penalty of removal upon the respondent.
An appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Board whereupon the respondent approached the High Court by way of a writ petition.
90,000.00 on 7.5.81 i.e. as soon as you received the sanction from Regional Office and Rs.
9,500.00 for the transport of household goods.
The disciplinary authority perused the entire material and agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on charges 1,2,3 and 5 but did number agree with the finding on charge 4.
