JUDGMENT Yatindra Singh, J.
1. The petitioner was a Field Officer with Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Gorakhpur (the Bank). On 26.2.1994, the Branch Manager was on tour and the petitioner was officiating as Branch Manager. It is alleged that on that date one Mr. Ram Kawal had come to the Bank and deposit some money, which was not deposited by the petitioner in his account. In view of this he was given a charge sheet dated 30.11.1995. In this charge, three charges were leveled against the petitioner and inquiry was conducted. In this inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 21.2.1998. By this report, the Inquiry Officer found that charge No. 1 to be proved, charge No. 2 not to be proved and charge No. 3 to be partly proved. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 19.5.1998 to the petitioner recording reasons that he does not agree with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. On Charge Nos. 2 & 3 as according to him these charges were fully proved. A punishment was required and recovery of Rs. 17,500/- was also proposed against him. The petitioner filed a reply on 20.6.1998. The disciplinary authority thereafter by his order dated 21.8.1998 awarded penalty as mentioned in the show cause notice. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on 7.1.1999. Heard Sri P.S. Baghel, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yashwant Verma, counsel for the respondents.
(1) The three charges against the petitioner related to Sri Ram Kawal only. Sri Ram Kawal only was not examined and no reliance ought to have been placed on the complaint made by him.
(2) Sri T.P. Tripathi was the Cashier and it was on duty of the cash to receive the money and not the duty of the Branch Manager to receive the money.
These persons were also not examined.
(3) Mr. Abdul Ansari, who was a messenger and he was also not examined.
These two persons have also filed their affidavits that they were present before the Inquiry Officer and they were present in the Branch during the Banking hours. The petitioner in its reply to show cause notice has taken these points specifically and without dealing with these points, the disciplinary authority without disclosing them has upheld the same. These points were also specifically taken in the ground of appeal have not been dealt with by the appellate authority.