Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 290 (PAT)

Suman Kumar Verma v. Union Of India

2007-02-08

J.N.SINGH, NARAYAN ROY

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Varma, learned counsel far the petitioner, and learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. This writ application is directed against order dated 17th August, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as "CAT") in O.A. No. 143 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner against the order of compulsory retirement has been rejected. 3. It appears that for committing gross irregularities by the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for the following charges: While the petitioner, working as Saving Bank Counter Assistant, Hajipur, Headquarters, accepted incomplete forms for opening of new Saving accounts from several depositors and also failed to keep the application forms with him during business hours and he failed to exercise the prescribed checks and facilitated to credit the heavy amount in the Saving Bank account opened by fake depositors and thereafter he allowed a huge amount of withdrawal without verifying the signatures of the depositors with those on Saving Bank and without obtaining signature of ledger clerk. The petitioner further indulged in allowing certain withdrawal from Saving Bank accounts without valid payment order. 4. Upon conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was found guilty of charges and punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him. The petitioner challenged the order of punishment before the appellate authority which was rejected and thereafter he went in revision. The revisional authority, however, allowed the revision application and quashed the order of punishment and remitted back the matter to record the reasonings for disagreement with the inquiry officer. 5. The matter thereafter was again examined by the authorities who recorded sufficient reasons for disagreement with the inquiry officer after giving due opportunity of filing representation to the delinquent, pursuant to which the delinquent filed representation, and the authorities ultimately, again maintained the order of punishment of compulsory retirement, which, in second round of litigation, was challenged by the petitioner in appeal and revision unsuccessfully. The matter thereafter was brought to the CAT vide O.A. No. 143 of 2002. The CAT on appreciation of facts and submission of parties dismissed the O.A. application holding that no procedural irregularity was found nor the order of punishment was found to be contrary to the provisions of law nor the same was harsh. 6. Mr. The matter thereafter was brought to the CAT vide O.A. No. 143 of 2002. The CAT on appreciation of facts and submission of parties dismissed the O.A. application holding that no procedural irregularity was found nor the order of punishment was found to be contrary to the provisions of law nor the same was harsh. 6. Mr. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the presenting officer subsequently became the disciplinary authority, and, therefore, the action of the disciplinary authority is wholly unwarranted in law, as he became Judge of his own cause, and, secondly, there was no fair play, inasmuch as all the documents asked for were not supplied to the petitioner to put forth his defence. 7. The pleas, which have been taken here by learned counsel for the petitioner, were not raised either before the appellate forum or revisional forum or before the CAT. 8. From the order impugned, it appears that the delinquent in his written statement has already stated that the documents, as demanded by him, were made available to him during inquiry. In absence of any finding recorded by the authorities, as referred to above, there is nothing before this Court to hold that the presenting officer became the disciplinary authority. 9. It is a case where several rounds of litigations were fought by the petitioner and his plea was examined and scrutinised carefully, but owing to the charges levelled against him the authorities declined to grant any relief. 10. Per se, it appears to us that it was a case of gross misconduct and the delinquent was found guilty after affording him sufficient opportunities, as required in law. 11. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, as referred to above, in our discretion it is not a case for giving any further indulgence to the petitioner. 12. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.