Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 648 (PAT)

Bachneshwar Pd. Singh v. Central Bank Of India

1995-11-28

S.K.SINGH

body1995
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent-Bank and perused the counter-affidavit. 2. In the present case the petitioner has been dismissed from service after holding of the departmental proceeding. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though initially there were four charges against him but subsequently, the Appellate authority exonerated him of charge nos.3 and 4. Charge Nos.1 and 2 have been found to be established, by which it is alleged that two creditors have deposited certain amounts in the Bank, which were not credited in their account and as such, the petitioner had misappropriated the said amount but during the course of enquiry the persons, who had deposited those amounts, have been examined by the enquiring officer and they have appeared before him and stated that the said amount which they had deposited before the petitioner (Head Cashier of the Bank) had been returned back to them on the same day, as some notes were torn. As the money had already been returned to the creditors, the question of crediting the same to the account did not arise. The said witnesses have not been found to be truthful by the enquiring officer, as the slips, which were issued in lieu of the said deposit, were not retained by the creditors themselves. 4. Be that as it may, from the charges, which have been proved against the petitioner, it appears that there is no pecuniary loss to the Bank and the depositors have themselves claimed that they have returned back the said amount. As such, the order of punishment of dismissal appears to be disproportionate to the allegations as alleged against the petitioner. 5. In that view of the matter the order of the appellate authority dated 27.10.94, as contained in Annexure-8, is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority, which shall pass a fresh order taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner, after affording him opportunity. 6. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above.