Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 469 (JHR)

Bindu Mandal v. General Manager, Allahabad Bank

2004-04-29

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.4.2002 (Annexure 8) passed by the Assistant General Manger-cum-Disciplinary Authority, whereby, the petitioner has been imposed the penalty of dismissal from the Bank Services with effect from 27.4.2001 without back salary in terms of Clause 21(iv)(a) of the 6th Bipartite Settlement dated 14.2.1995. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Peon-cum-Bill Collector in Allahabad Bank, Gomo Branch since 28.3.1970. He was deputed for Inward Cash Remittance from Park Market, Dhanbad Branch, along with Head Cashier, on 1.7.1997 while returning from the Park Market Branch with a cash of Rs. 3,00,000/-the cash was looted away by Dacoits near Paharpur. The Head Cashier reported the matter to the Police and FIR was registered under Sections 395 and 397. IPC. The petitioner was also arrested in the said case and was remanded to jail custody. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 395, 120B and 412, IPC against nine accused persons including the petitioner and they were put on trial. Subsequently, the accused persons including the petitioner was convicted for committing the offence under Sections 395 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- by judgment dated 27.4.2001. It is stated by the petitioner that against the said conviction and sentence, he has preferred criminal appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2001 which is pending for hearing and he has been admitted to bail during the pendency of the said appeal. It is further stated by the petitioner that after he was released on bail he went to join his service but he was not allowed to join and he was served with a notice to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the service in terms of Clause 19.03 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14.2.1995. The petitioner filed his show cause and thereafter, by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 dated 19.4.2002, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service. 4. The petitioner filed his show cause and thereafter, by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 dated 19.4.2002, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no doubt, the petitioner was found guilty and was convicted but since the appeal has been admitted against the said conviction and sentence and he has been released on bail and, therefore, the issuance of Annexure-8, dismissing the petitioner from service during the pendency of the appeal was not justified. It has further been submitted that under Clause 21(iv)(a) of the Bipartite Settlement, if an employee is found guilty of gross misconduct then for that either of the several punishments provided in Sub-clauses (a) to (g) including the dismissal without notice can be awarded. Accordingly, it is submitted that the extreme punishment for dismissal from service was not warranted in the present case and the petitioner could have been awarded other punishment provided in Sub-clauses (b) to (g) of Clause 21(iv). 5. The prayer of the petitioner in this application has vehemently been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner being an employee of the Bank, indulged himself in such a heinous crime, therefore, he has rightly been dismissed from service. The petitioner does not require any sympathy as the Banks money was looted away and the Court of law has found him guilty for his involvement in the commission of the said offence and he has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the view that under the Bipartite Settlement which was binding upon the employer and the employees of the Bank equally. It is well within the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to pass an order of dismissal of an employee after finding him guilty of grave misconduct even without back wages and without notice. No doubt, Sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause 21(iv)(a) of the Bipartite Settlement provides different punishments but the quantum of punishment depends upon seriousness and gravity of charges. No doubt, Sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause 21(iv)(a) of the Bipartite Settlement provides different punishments but the quantum of punishment depends upon seriousness and gravity of charges. It appears that according to the seriousness and gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority awarded him extreme punishment of dismissal from service, in view of the fact that he was convicted by a Court of law under Sections 395, 412 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the quantum of punishment. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ application. This writ application is thus dismissed.