High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Narendra Kumar Sankhwar v. The Uttar Pradesh Coop. Institutional Board Lko - WRIT - A No. 29145 of 1993  RD-AH 13210 (31 July 2007)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29145 of 1993
Narendra Kumar Sankwar ... Petitioner
The U.P.Cooperative Institutional Service Board & Ors. ... Respondents
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The petitioner was a cashier in the respondent-Bank. He is aggrieved by an order dated 22.5.1993 dismissing him from service.
The charge against the petitioner is with regard to commission of fraud and forgery in the documents of the Bank and embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 38,148/-. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice, to which he submitted a reply on 27.2.1993. The said reply of the petitioner has not been filed along with the writ petition, but the same is annexed with the counter affidavit. During enquiry, the petitioner had given in his own hand-writing that the said amount had been withdrawn by him from the Bank, thereby admitting his guilt but stated that it was because of mistake. After enquiry it had been found that the petitioner was guilty of charge of embezzlement and forgery. Besides this, earlier also in the year 1989 the petitioner was found guilty of having embezzled an amount of Rs. 1,19,050/-. However, the petitioner confessed his guilty and deposited the said amount and further requested that he be pardoned and would not commit any such mistake in future. The Board of Directors, taking a lenient view at that stage, reinstated the petitioner in the service of the Bank after imposing some punishment. Now again he has repeated the same act by embezzling an amount of Rs. 38,148/-, in which also he has admitted his guilt but stated that it was because of mistake.
The service in a Bank is a job of responsibility as it involves financial transactions and a person found guilty, not once but twice of having committed embezzlement of huge sums cannot be permitted to continue in service. As such the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the impugned order is fully justified and does not call for any interference.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.