bhurka471

bhurka471 offer my services in ,service/legal /pension DE matters service , DE, Pension matters

09/04/2026

IN THE LAST 20 MONTHS TOOK UP 39 CASES OF DIFFERENT BANK’S CHARGE SHEETED OFFICERS AS THEIR ADVISOR ,SUGGESTION ,BRIEFED , APPEALED , MODIFIED , ASSISTED IN FILING REVIEW PETITION AND SUCCEEDED IN SAVING THEIR SERVICE ,SUCH NO IS 27 WHILE SORRY FOR OTHER 12 WHOM COULD NOT BE DEFENDED BUT SHOWED THE WAY FOR LEGAL BATTLE –
------------------------------------------------
Status wise CSO--- punishment
DGM-- -- censure
AGM--- increment down—no- 3 ,removal-1
CHIEF MANAGER—increment down no-6 , scale down to -3 , scale down -1, dismissed-2
Senior manager – increment down –4 , scale down to-1- 3 ,dismissed –4
Scale- 2-- increment punishment –2, down to clerk –3, dismissed - 4
SWO- increment punishment – 1 , dismissed –1
I FOUND CSO AND CSO’S CASUAL APPROACH COST THEIR SERVICES
-------------------------------
At going through various proceedings I observed that DR’S arguments are immature ,lack of knowledge of rules and laws , don’t raise objections thus admits untrue facts , no make up mind for relevant witness , not using appeal mechanism to higher authorities , long submission on personal achievements ,in the matter of end use and diversion of funds they have no arguments not rebutting the allegations
BANKERS ARE LOSING SERVICE
-----------------------
Bank employees are increasingly losing their service—ranging from severe penalties to outright dismissal—due to misconduct, as high standards of integrity and fiduciary duty are expected in the banking sector. High courts have upheld that even a suspicion of misconduct, when backed by evidence, is sufficient to terminate employment to protect the trust and faith of customers.
Common Reasons for Termination (Gross Misconduct)
• Fraudulent Activity: Misappropriation of customer funds, fraudulently encashing cheques, and unauthorized transfers of funds to personal accounts.
• Unauthorised Transactions: Engaging in heavy transactions in personal or dependents' accounts, often violating bank policies on personal dealings.
• Unauthorised Absence: Remaining absent without permission for extended periods, usually exceeding 30 days.
• Breach of Trust & Misbehaviour: Misconduct includes misconduct towards customers, acting beyond authorized limits, and causing monetary loss through negligence.

29/03/2026

A CRS PUNISHED CHIEF MANAGER IS REINSTATED ON APPEAL ,ALLEGATIONS WERE VERY SERIOUS THAT HE HAS DISBURSED 21 FAKE LOANS AMOUNTING 41.20 LAKHS SINCE BORROWERS HAD DENIED AVAILING LOANS DESPITE THEY HAD EXECUTED LOAN DOCUMENTS , STILL INQUIRY OFFICER PROVED ALL THE 21 LOAN ACS AS FAKE---
------------------------------------
FINAL PUNISHMENT -----
----------------------
Appellate authority (ED) has reviewed the CRS and finally punished the CSO with the penalty of 1 statge down for one year ,right now this chief manager has again join the bank on the 26th of March-2026 after expending 17 th months in suspension
--------------------------------------
NEGLIGENT AND CARELESS INQUIRY COST THE PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITY –
---------------------------------------
This CSO had a definite opportunity to become an AGM but ignorant inquiry officer as well Das (GM)ignorance of rules and laws ruined the opportunity
-----------------------------
CASH BRIEF-
--------------
(Jugal kishore shukla mbl no- 8827424443 is presenting as under )
-----------------------
Between April-2023 to march -2024 the CSO had disbursed various loans like mudra loans +kcc+ SSI units and there were complaints against CSO that he has sanctioned many fake loans in mudra loans ,thus bank conducted special audit + vigilance inquiry in September-2024 and investigating officer reported that CSO has sanctioned 21 fake loans amounting 41.20 lakhs , investigating officer also got 21 written complaints that they did not avail loans ,even they denied that they have executed any loan documents
Bank issued charge sheet under major penalty proceeding ,CSO contested that no loan is fake ,documents are genuine and disbursement is legal but bank stamped unsatisfactory response hence an inquiry officer (AGM)is appointed to enquire into the matter Inquiry officer proved all charges and DA punished the CSO with the penalty of CRS in the month of jul -2025
--------------------------------
The 41 yrs CSO (chief manager) contacted with me in the first week of August-2025
I observed that i) bank did not provide cctv footage , did not call witnesses of all the 21 borrowers but out of 21 only 5 borrowers were called and investigating officer was also examined, investigating officer said he has taken statement /complaints of the borrowers and they have denied in executing any loan documents
----------------------------------
Appeal preferred as under to appellate authority (ED)
---------------------------
i) Please pay your attention that the loan agreement, application form, and other documents signed by all the 21 borrowers. The law states that a person who signs a contract is bound by it, even if they claim they did not understand the legal consequences. If bank had doubt over ex*****on of documents then why a forensic handwriting expert report could not be produced when the borrower claims their signatures were forged? Out of 5 witnesses 2 have admitted to signatures appear on documents are their if the borrower admits to the signature but denies the contract ( signing documents) then it is proved case that borrowers are telling lie

ii) All the borrowers had opened SB acs through which loans were disbursed observe the Know Your Customer (KYC) documents submitted matched the applicants loan documents and were verified at the time of signing the documents

iii) All the transactions in SB as well as loans were voluntary, properly documented, adhered to bank’s Fair Practices Code. Signatures on withdrawal forms are matching with signs of loan documents even cashier has witnessed that he has paid the amount as per withdrawal forms .

iv) Under the Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption that official and statutory acts were done regularly. The bank documents were created in the normal course of business.

v) Observe cheque book issued to 5 borrowers (A+B+C+D+E+F) the loan involved cheques then , Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provide a presumption that the instrument was drawn for consideration (debt).

vi) the borrowers did not immediately dispute the loan after signing, or that they allowed the account to become overdue before denying the loan, indicating a "malafide" attempt to evade repayment.

vii) the borrowers did not send any formal letter or legal notice to the bank protesting the loan when it was initially sanctioned or when money was transferred.

viii) that the field officer complied with the bank's field verification protocols (e.g., photos of the business/asset, KYC check). field officer has made a statement outlining the specific date, time, and location where the documents were signed second officer has said all the borrowers had come to branch to execute loan documents no borrowers have stated that they did not come to branch ,if borrowers were not interested in availing loans then on why they signed the documents if they did not want the loan, and why they did not object to the disbursement. Of the loan into their saving acs ?

ix) When second officer went for pre-inspection then all the borrowers shown their KYC documents that confirms the borrower was interested in the loan and presented their KYC documents otherwise they should have denied in producing KYC documents because they did not want to avail loans .

PRAYER AND RELIEF SOUGHT ---
------------------------------
I have clearly proved that nothing is malice nor any fake loan is sanctioned and disbursed still I am punished with CRS this shows that bank has no policy of honesty but rewarding the cheaters who have lawfully executed the loan documents to avail the loans but denying that they have not received any loans ,this clearly shows their bad intention ,Under laws like India's Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 318, cheating is a crime so bank must bring the cheaters under the purview of criminal act in the court of law ,with this appeal I earnestly request you to exonerate me from all the charges by revoking the punishment of CRS

20/03/2026

ACCEPTANCE OF CHARGES CAN BE WITHDRAWN ON THE FIRST DAY OF HEARING --- AND IF THE SAME ARE NOT WITHDRAWN THEN ON THE BASIS OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE BANK CAN PROVE CHARGES ------
-----------------------------------------
A CHIEF MANAGER PSU BANK HAS A QUERY –
---------------------------------------
A ,GM asked me to accept some serious charges leveled against me by saying that I will defend you when enquiry will be over ,so without thinking of consequences I accepted charges some 4 months a go , now bank is going to initiate DE by appointing an AGM as enquiry officer ,some of my friends are saying that charges will be proved since you accepted and you can be removed from service , It is troubling me too much and I have lost my sense so please can you suggest me some remedies ? and can bank remove me from service on the basis of my acceptance ?
-----------------------------------
Dear friend , my reply is as under ---
i) On the first day hearing when enquiry officer will ask you that –
Did you receive charge sheet and have you read -- you should say yes
ii) Now EO will again ask you do you accept charges ---- you must say no
iii) PO will definitely place your acceptance of charges letter before EO and EO will again ask you this is your acceptance letter do you admit ?--------
* Immediately you must record in the proceedings , explaining that the admission was made under misunderstanding, pressure, or misinformation so I withdraw the same , and request him for a regular enquiry.
**If an employee withdraws their admission, the enquiry officer cannot rely on the initial admission alone. The EO must then proceed to examine witnesses and documents to establish the charges, ensuring natural justice is maintained.
Acceptance of charges know some precondition
---------------------------------------------------
*Only a "clear, categorical and unqualified admission" of charges allows a Disciplinary Authority (DA) to dispense with the enquiry. If the admission was not voluntary, was taken under pressure, or was qualified, the employee has a strong case to withdraw it and demand a formal hearing.
**an admission of charges made by a CSO during a departmental enquiry can generally be withdrawn, provided it is done before the inquiry officer has closed the proceedings and recorded their final findings, and the admission was not made under coercion.
***If the enquiry has already concluded, the report is submitted, and the DA has already passed a final order based on the admission, withdrawing the admission at that late stage becomes useless
JUDICIAL REFERENCE SAYS NO NEED TO PROVE CHARGES IF CSO ADMITS CHARGES ,KNOW THE SCI RULINGS ----
------------------------- In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Bhamra Vs. Bank of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.5038 of 2009 decided on 8 February 2016)their Lordships have held that as a matter of fact when the charges in the charge sheet are admitted, there was no need for the bank to hold any inquiry into the charges and the charges having so proved on admission, the bank was justified in imposing the punishment as prescribed in the Rules. It was observed thus:

12/03/2026

PAYMENTS ON 12 DECEASED ACS ,A DISMISSED SR MANAGER PSU BANK IS REINSTATED ON APPEAL AND HE HAS JOINED THE BANK ON YESTERDAY –THE 11TH MARCH-2026 AND PUNISHMENT REVIEWED BY AWARDING 2 STAGE DOWN FOR ONE YEAR-
----------------------------------
CASE BRIEF
The CSO paid 12 persons amounting 14.20 lakhs on various dates in a routine way by using loose withdrawal form , there were no transaction in those acs for the last 11 months , in fact the CSO has joined the bank 4 months back before the incidence happened, acs were opened 4 years back , the actual ac holders were died on different dates but no any family members had reported the bank ,the information of death means before payments in acs the actual ac holders were died ,BUT acs were not marked as deceased by earlier branch head -----
Bank issued charge sheet of negligence and helping in frauds to fraudsters , a chief manager was appointed as IO who proved all the charges on mainly relying on death certificates of actual ac holders , DA passed the order of DISMISSAL
This 33 yrs sr manager contacted with me in sept -2025 and I took his case and placed my arguments before appellate authority ---
--------------------------------------
Main points of appeal –
--------------------------
1) the payment was processed following standard procedures, relying on existing account data, and that no warning flags were raised at the time
2) payment to a deceased account by focusing on lack of mens rea (criminal intent), CSO adhered to standard operating procedures (SOPs), and was ignorant of the death at the time of transaction that’s why initiated immediate recovery actions. Honorable sir the payment was a bona fide mistake rather than intentional fraud ,no formal notification of death, and leveraging the principle of preponderance of probability.
3) that the action was a technical error without any malicious intent or personal gain.
4) system entries are proving that the death certificate or notification was not received before the payment was processed. ,death certificates were received by bank through investigating officer only after CSO had made payments to all such acs
5) Payment proceeds had maker and checker concept ,CSO has only checked and verified (payment) through their specimen signatures as per system and no receivers had present before CSO so it was a case identified through signatures and bank has not objected that there are signature difference as per inquiry proceedings and DA’s punishment order
6) the payment did not benefit CSO personally and was not a result of collusion.
7) it was an honest mistake of fact regarding the status of the account holder, not negligence. Bank failed to establish that how CSO helped the fraudsters to withdrawal money from the acs which were not marked as deceased acs? Bank also failed to establish relations of CSO with fraudsters
CONGRATULATIONS ON HIS JOINING
--------------------------------------------
CSO spent almost 18 months in exile from bank (suspension+ DE) and on 11th March-2026 he has joined again to bank , the punishment DISMISSAL is reviewed to 2 increments down for one year

11/03/2026

MATTER OF MEDICAL LEAVES ,PO CAN BE EXAMINED BY CSO
----------------------------------
Shukla sirji , namskar ,
-------------
I am a chief manager in a PSU bank ,I have serious medical problem since 2023 so from nov-2024 to sept -2025 I availed medical leaves with intimation and medical certificate to controlling authority of the bank , but bank did not sanction and declared the leave periods as unauthorized absence and issued charge sheet in nov-2025 ,right now bank has initiated a DE against me , first hearing is done and PO has presented all my correspondence with regards to medical leaves by arguing that no leaves are sanctioned thus establishing that without getting sanction I am remaining absence from duty in bank , sir I want to know can I examine PO and what would me line of examination in which I can prove that medical leaves were natural ?
--------------------------------------
Dear friend,
1) Yes, a Presenting Officer (PO) can be examined as a witness in a domestic enquiry, and there is no strict prohibition against them appearing as a witness, provided it does not violate principles of natural justice. While they typically present evidence, the PO can act as a witness, especially to authenticate documents or provide evidence supporting the charges
2) The PO represents the disciplinary authority and can also be examined as a witness to prove the charges, as established by judicial interpretation.
3) The inquiry officer must remain impartial, ensuring that the charged employee has the opportunity to cross-examine the PO if they appear as a witness.
4) The PO’s role is to aid the Inquiry Officer in finding the truth, not merely acting as a prosecutor, which allows for flexibility in presenting evidence.
Cross examination
1) Any body can fell sick , it is natural and not man made --- am I correct -------
2) Our bank service has provision regarding sick leave ( quote rule) and narrate how it can be availed – and ask the witness to confirm------
3) As per my email/letters (mention all by numbering) I have fulfilled the requirement of sick leaves to be sanctioned ------- please confirm---
4) SICK Leave is a right, not a luxury, then how bank can mark absent despite unfit certificate is issued by a qualified medical doctor?------
5) No prior notice is required to send employer but intimation is a must which CSO has done then under which law bank can reject a sick leave ?--------
6) Do you know, No, medical leave can be rejected, if it is annexed with a medical certificate, if the employer suspects the certificate's legitimacy or if it violates specific leave rules or employment contracts, according to Indian law and civil service rules. Employers can challenge a medical certificate and, in cases of suspected fraud or if the exigencies of service require it, so whether bank has any evidence that my medical unfit certificates are fraudulently procured ------------
7) The competent authority may have reasons to doubt the genuineness of the medical certificate provided. Am I correct?-----
😎 Bank has the discretion to refer medical certificates for verification if they have doubts about their legitimacy. So whether bank has done so---------
9) Bank has not referred the medical certificates to Dr/hospitals nor bank has asked CSO to be examined by a medical board or a qualified medical officer thus without valid reasons CSO’s medical leaves have been declared as absent/ un-authorize
Can bank do this and under which specific rules ?------
10) Do you know that “Sick leave is a statutory right. Denial without proper examination or cause is unlawful.” Its ruled by Gujrat high court Case Law: Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (2014) court further says Sick Leave is granted when an employee is medically unfit to work. This is a protected right and not discretionary so whether bank has no respect for the land mark rulings ?--------------
11) There is a law that since bank has not challenged the validity of medical certificates so bank can not reject medical leaves and declare leave periods as unauthorized please go through below mentioned briefings -----
---Cheel Singh v. MGB Gramin Bank Pali & Ors. [ Civil appeal no. 6018 of 2014 (arising out of SLP © no. 29807 of 2012)]
Service Law- Unauthorized absence on medical negligence-
--------------------------------
Facts are such that the present appellant working with respondent bank as a clerk-cum-cashier was on leave without prior permission or medical certificate for 10 and half months. Post which he submitted his medical certificate stating his serious illness- Disciplinary authority dismissed the Appellant from his services- Single bench High Court quashed the order of dismissal and ordered re-in statement- division bench in appeal in part allowed the decision of the single bench high court, but quashed the order of reinstatement- Held, the Appellant had submitted his medical certificate, and no where was the validity of the certificate questioned, if the same is believed to be true the Appellant could not have been dismissed – Appeal allowed.
Right now my question to you don’t bank honor the judicial rulings ?-----------

23/02/2026

PUNISHMENT TO DOWNGRADE SCALE-3 REVIEWED TO ORIGINAL STATUS OF AGM (SCALE-5) WITH ONLY 2 INCREMENTS DOWN ON APPEAL—
------------------------------------------
Bank could not distinguish between Siphoning and diversion
Even bank wrongly categorized under frauds ,against RBI guidelines
----------------------------------
Diversion is a broader term, whereas "siphoning of funds" implies deliberate misutilization to the detriment of the bank. temporary fund transfer is not a case of diversion of funds
------------------------------
CASE BRIEF-
------------
While working as chief manager in a branch the said AGM got sanction in 4 business loan ranging 4 crores to 6 crores total 20 crores , and disbursed them within 30 days which were post inspected too by providing post inspection report by second officer and after 4 months this chief manager was promoted to post of AGM , after 10 months of loan disbursement bank conducted vigilance inquiry and reported no existence of any units or no stock as per loan sanctioned even suspected some parts of loans are diverted to their other units and this report has also clearly written bank funds are siphoned by transfer to other companies but as per bank records loans were showing as standard .
A DGM was appointed as inquiry officer and he proved all charges even established helped the borrowers in siphoning of funds too , and the DA (GM) punished him by downgrading to the post of scale-3, ,this AGM contacted with me in the first week of August-2025 , I took up his case and observe that the funds were used for legitimate business operations, that no dishonest intention existed, or that the alleged diversion was actually a temporary business necessity.
Highlighted in appeal before CGM--
--------------------
i) no funds were transferred to shell companies or entities that have no tangible business connection to their company.
ii) Under Indian banking regulations (RBI guidelines), diversion of funds is defined as using loan funds for purposes other than those sanctioned, such as using working capital for long-term investments, transferring funds to subsidiaries/group companies, or routing funds through other banks without permission.
iii) Loan availing parties have presented (as per defence documents) that some parts of funds were transferred, formalize them with proper loan agreements to show it was an investment or loan, not a siphoning of funds.
iv) Some parts of the funds were used for legitimate business purposes (e.g., paying urgent creditors, raw materials) instead of the specifically sanctioned purpose,it was necessary for the survival of the company, not for personal enrichment.
v) It is clearly visible that the funds were used in good faith to sustain the business during a crisis, it may not be considered criminal. These cases can not be defined under core of criminal charges like Section 420 (Cheating) or 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) / Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) because there is no dishonest intention.
vi) Recovery is regular ,no any dues are pending with the bank the borrowers are proving that the assets created (even if not as per the original sanction) still exist and are available for all recovery, then no question of imposing Severe charges to be imposed
vii) Please observe Stock Audits & Working Capital Reports: Shows that the funds were utilized in operational activities that generated inventory or receivables.
viii) Owners resolutions: shows that the transfer of funds to subsidiaries were authorized, transparent, and for legitimate business reasons
ix) Project Reports/Progress Reports submitted by CA- the quarterly reports submitted to the bank that shows the funds were used for business purposes, even if slightly deviated from the original plan. This is neither diversion of fund nor siphoning of loans
x) Bank has issued notice for classifying the accounts as fraud without any supportive evidence to borrowers , and borrowers have submitted a detailed, evidence-based reply that there is no angle of fraud even they have approached to RBI Ombudsman by pleading that the bank has classified the accounts arbitrarily under fraud , appeal is pending before RBI and she has kept the matter pending for more than 12 months then how can bank charge against the CSO that he assisted the fraudster to siphon the bank loans
PRAYER AND RELIEF SOUGHT –
-----------------------------
1) the IO arrived at conclusions that no reasonable person would have reached based on the evidence on record.
2) No Evidence/Weak Evidence: the charges are not substantiated by any evidence or only by hearsay.
In light of the above-mentioned grounds, it is respectfully prayed that the Appellate Authority may be pleased to:
--------------------------------------
I) Set aside the order of punishment dated [Date] issued by the Disciplinary Authority.
II) Exonerate the appellant from all charges and findings of the Inquiry Officer.
III) Grant a personal hearing to the appellant to present the case. before passing a final order

05/02/2026

MISAPPROPRIATION OF SUBSIDY ,DISMISSAL OF A SENIOR MANAGER( PSU BANK ) IS REVOKED ON REVIEW PETITION AND HE HAS JOINED THE BANK ON 31ST JAN-2026
-------------------------------
Note- one staff (CSO)confession can not be used against another CSO in the case of misappropriation of funds ---
------------------------------------------

CASE BRIEF---
------------------
It was alleged against 2 officers –one branch head and one second officer that they have misappropriated the govt subsidy amounting nearly 10 lakhs ,the subsidy was issued to 22 borrowers , surprisingly loan documents were executed ,loan acs were disbursed through SB acs ,in fact not loans but only subsidy were disbursed and closed in a few days , loose withdrawal forms were used where all the acs holders had signed , cctv had shown that all the borrowers had come to branch , borrowers had made complaint that they have received no money ,
Bank initiated DE and second officer was made witness against branch head along with 22 borrowers , second officer had made confession that misconduct has happened by not disbursing all the amount to borrowers this confession is used against branch head and DA punished him with DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE with no future ban in Dec-2024, while second officer was awarded only with one stage down for one year , the punished CSO made appeal before appellate authority in jan but the same dismissed in may -2025 , this CSO came in my contact in the first week of june-2025
----------------------------------------
PREFERRED APPEAL PURELY ON LAW POINTS
-----------------------------------------------
1) I observed that due process of loan documents were executed even disbursed through their respective SB cs , no false signatures were claimed ,even it had ample proof that all the borrowers had visited the branch and signed on all the relevant documents then how this case can be charged of misappropriation funds ? the loans were disbursed in the presence of only those two CSOs

2) Bank presented complaint letters of all borrowers as documentary evidence but no supportive evidence now question arises how only complain letters can be used as proof of misappropriation funds in terms of evidence act ,why borrowers were not examined ?

3) Prayed to reviewing authority to pay serious attention towards confession made by second officer on dated 18th August-2024 on accepting allegation of misappropriation of subsidy by the bank even said it was instructed to do so by the branch head , in this confession letter second office begged to pardon him with the assurance of keeping good conduct in future .

4) In fact it’s a case of no evidence of misappropriation of subsidy but bank authority has made scapegoat to branch head by creating evidence of second officer who said misappropriation fund happened by giving confession letter while this officer has prepared pre-inspection, post inspection report too, means he is grater involved in so-called fake finance but he is punished with only one increment down ?

5) If second officer is so honest then why he didn’t report at the time of loan sanctioned and disbursement in April-2024 to the higher authority of the bank that branch head is disbursing fake loans to misappropriate the subsidy amt of 22 borrowers?

6) Mr reviewing authority confession letter dated 18th August-2024 is only prepared with the intention of face saving by the second officer under the inducement /influence of higher authority of the bank thus evidence is created against CSO with the intention of punishing CSO this is bad in law

BANK DID A BLUNDER MISTAKE IN ACCEPTING CONFESSION AS EVIDENCE
------------------------------------
Bank must know the land mark ruling passed [United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 108, decided on 31.01.2022]... bench of J KM Joseph --- and J. S. Ravindra Bhat
that even in departmental proceedings, there had to be some overt evidence, and not mere suspicion, to support a valid finding of complicity of the employee.
-----------------------------------
Sc Directs Reinstatement Bank Employees misappropriate funds. Confession by one leads to mild penalty; No evidence against another leads to dismissal! SC directs reinstatement Supreme Court:
--------------------------
In a case where a bank employee was dismissed from services despite lack of evidence, : In a case where a bank employee was dismissed from services despite lack of evidence, the bench of KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat*, JJ has directed his reinstatement and has held that even in departmental proceedings, there had to be some overt evidence, and not mere suspicion, to support a valid finding of complicity of the employee. In the case at hand, it was alleged that the respondent had disbursed loan in favour of twelve fictitious persons in connection with the Integrated Rural Development Project and had misappropriated the amount of ₹ 60,000/- forming the subsidy component, (of the total ₹ 1,20,000/- disbursed to the beneficiaries). Interestingly, his colleague who confessed to the misconduct, was charged and proceeded with departmentally. The confession of guilt, which he owned up to, nevertheless resulted in a mild penalty of withholding of increments. However, the respondent, who did not admit his guilt, or confess to it, and in respect of whom there was no credible evidence, even going by the lower standards of acceptable proof in departmental inquires, was held to be guilty and visited with the penalty of dismissal. The supreme Court noticed that “A reading of the disciplinary authority’s order reveals that his past record of minor misconduct played a major role in determining his guilt, despite lack of evidence, and the extreme penalty of dismissal.” The Court observed that in the present case, the confessional statement was not by the respondent. Hence, best then, that document bound the authors, not third parties, like the respondent. “The enquiry officer clearly erred by relying on such extraneous matters, as the respondent could not be made a scapegoat for the confession of others, especially with regard to his role. The bank’s charge about his complicity had to be proved by evidence. This document, containing others’ confession, could not have been used against him.” The Court hence directed the Bank to reinstate the respondent, and calculate all his benefits, including arrears of salary, pay increase (as applicable), increments, and all consequential benefits, and calculate his terminal benefits, and fix his pension, if admissible to him under the bank’s regulations. The determination of these benefits shall be undertaken, and the payment of all amounts be made, within three months.

Address

Rajpur

Telephone

+919826138250

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when bhurka471 posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to bhurka471:

Shortcuts

Share