High Court · 2012

The respondent-writ petitioner was employed in the appellant Bank and when he wa s posted as Head Cashier in the year 1993 an allegation was made that he collect ed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from a customer of the Bank but did not credit the s ame to his account. The enquiry officer vide report dated 19.11.2003 held the ch arges to be proved which led to imposition of punishment. The respondent-writ pe titioner challenged the same mainly on the ground that there was no evidence in support of the charges. Though the writ petitioner had signed the receipt for th e amount, the receipt was also signed by the Branch Manager who passed the said cheque and gave the amount to the police. In these circumstances, there was no q uestion of the writ petitioner crediting the amount to the account of the custom er. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties upheld the above plea and held th at punishment imposed was not justified. The findings recorded are as under : (cid:28)20. From the records which have been made available for this court’s perusal it is clear that the evidence adduced through the management witnesses clearly reveal the complicity of the Branch Manager (respondent No.4) with regard to the charge made against the writ petitioner and if it is the Branch Manager who had cleared the cheque by functioning as the Bank’s cashier on 18.8.01 in the absen ce of the writ petitioner, and if it is the Branch Manager who had handed over t he cheque amount of Rs.20,000/- Prafulla Barman, Manager of UCO Bank for handing over the money to the police, it is not at all clear as to how the petitioner c ould be found guilty of the charges made against him. The petitioner had undoubtedly put his signature as a co-signatory in th e receipt meant to be issued to the loanee but the Branch Manager being the othe r co-signatory and having had a hand in the entire transaction, never put his si gnature on the said receipt and taking advantage of the absence of the writ peti tioner from the bank by sending him out on an official errand, respondent NO.4 f unctioned as a cashier of the bank and did the entire mischief. Thereafter he tr ied to put the blame on the writ petitioner by using the receipt signed only by the writ petitioner who entrusted it with respondent No.4 for his second signatu re, as the petitioner had to go out of the bank on 18.8.01 on an errand given by the respondent No.4 himself. The letter dated 13.5.03 of Prafulla Barman, the Manager of UCO Bank, wh o was introduced as a defence witness, clearly reveals the culpability of the Br anch Manager and pointed unwaveringly to the innocence of the writ petitioner an d despite absence of any evidence to connect the writ petitioner with the charge of misconduct, the enquiry officer without any substantive evidence recorded an adverse finding against the writ petitioner. The disciplinary authority too without any appropriate application of mi nd to the enquiry report merely endorsed the enquiry report and accepted the sam e and thereafter proceeded to inflict the punishment on the writ petitioner on t he basis of such perverse enquiry findings.

21. This was clearly not warranted on the basis of the materials available a nd it appears that ignoring the relevant materials which shows the innocence of the petitioner and without any evidence to connect the petitioner with the offen ce charged, the impugned punishments have been inflicted. I am of the considered opinion that the guilt finding recorded against the writ petitioner in the enqu iry report dated 19.11.03 are based on no evidence. I am also of the opinion tha t the enquiry officer ignored the material evidence indicating the innocence of the writ petitioner. Accordingly the enquiry finding dated 19.11.03 is held to b e unsustainable in law. 22. As this court held that the enquiry finding dated 19.11.03 is vitiated, ,the punishment inflicted on the basis of such vitiated enquiry finding too is n ot sustainable. (cid:29) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Before we could go into the merits, learned counsel for the parties point out th at the writ petitioner was retired from service by way of compulsory retirement vide order dated 15.7.2004 and the said order was upheld by this Court on 13.8.2 008 passed in WP(C) No.9457 of 2004. In view of the fact that the respondent-writ petitioner has already retired on 1 5.7.2004 i.e. 5 months after the order of punishment, period of punishment is in significant which does not affect the appellant in any significant manner. Moreo ver, the amount of cheque in question was handed over to the police and could no t have been credited to the account of the customer from whom the same was taken , as held by learned Single Judge. In these circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.