Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

As per my letter dated 24.11.86 I will reply your letter No. Est/529 dated 21.10.86 within the time. Please acknowledge receipt of my letter and the enclosed Bankers" cheque and oblige."

7. The petitioner replied to the charge sheet by a letter dated 9th December, 1986. The petitioner in the said reply has stated that he was in charge , of the said Extension Counter. He felt it as his moral obligation to make good the loss of the Bank even at the cost of his personal sufferings. So the amount of shortage was also adjusted go debit the suspense account and the concerned voucher was signed by him. Subsequently, the petitioner also duly made good the shortage vide Bankers' cheque Nos. K 592333/BR/1513 dated 10.11.86, K 593888/BR/1568 dated 24.11.86 and K 593892/BR/ 1572 dated 25.11.86 for Rs. 32,000/-, Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 2,000/ respectively. The petitioner in clear terms recorded that he had no intention to misappropriate the Bank's fund or to misuse his official position in the Bank and he also disagreed as to the charges levelled against him,. He further recorded that he being a departmental head and in-charge should repent for that. His recording! is quoted below :-

"I am repented for that. The shortage which was found on that said date has been liquidated fully by me as stated above as such the charge of Breach of trust should not lie on me."

8. The petitioner joined the Bank on 26th July, 1973. He had no black spot or adverse marks in his service while he was in the defence service or in the Bank Service. Petitioner's moto was to work hard for the progress and prosperity of the bank. He has only 4 years and 2 months to serve the Bank and would serve the Bank for the remaining period with utmost honesty, sincerity and integrity. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of the charges was made. The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of the reply did not hold the enquiry but arrived at its decision on 19.1.87 as would appear in Annexure 'G' which was served upon the petitioner. The said decision read thus :-

3. After that Sri Mukherjee at his own has made good the loss of Rs. 40,000/- to the Bank and has also submitted his reply dated 9.12.86. In his reply while accepting the charge brought against him he has stated inter alia that he had no intention either to misappropriate Bank's fund or to misuse his official position. He has however, repented for the occurrence of the incident and prayed for taking a lenient view.
4. However, taking into consideration the whole aspects of the case, I find that there was temporary misappropriation of Bank's fund by Sri Pranab Kumar Mukherjee, the charged Officer. No doubt, he has repaid the money in few instalments, but his credibility is at stake. In an organisation dealing with public money, such a person whose credibility is not worthy of credence cannot be allowed to continue. This temporary misappropriation of public money cast a shadow in the integrity of the charged officer. His case, therefore, cannot be dealt with leniently. Accordingly, I feel inclined to remove the charged officer from the service of the Bank in its greater interest.

18. Mr. Debranjan Mallick, the learned Advocate appearing for the Bank claimed and contended that the entire matter is to be viewed from the conduct of the petitioner which itself constituted the ground for not holding the Allahabad Bank Officers' Employees Conduct Regulation, 1976. In extension of the aforesaid submission Mr. Mallick further elaborately placed ;the charge sheet, the reply of the petitioner to the charge sheet and the payment made on three diverse dates for liquidating the shortage of Rs. 40,000/-. After placing reliance on the documents and pleadings of the parties Mr. Mallick claimed that it was not necessary for the Bank to adduce evidence or to examine himself and to adduce evidence on behalf of the Bank, for the sole reason the petitioner himself expressed 'I am repented' and he accepted the moral obligation.