ORDER
1. The matter is posted in Preliminary Hearing ‘B’ group. By consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. While working as a clerk in the Cauvery Grameena Bank, Mysore, petitioner was served with a charge-memo dated 13-11-1992. In that, there were 10 charges against the petitioner. All these charges pertain to misappropriation of funds of the Bank. This charge-memo had been replied by the petitioner denying the allegations made in the charge-memo. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, had appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made in the charge memo. The enquiry officer after holding a detailed enquiry in accordance with the rules of natural justice, had submitted his report and the findings thereof to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 2-7-1993. By the said order, he has imposed a penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 30(1)(e) of the Cauvery Grameena Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1980. Aggrieved by that order, petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority as provided under the Service Regulations. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 2-11-1993 had rejected the appeal and then has confirmed the orders made by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by these orders, petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri Appanna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends before this Court that the respondent-authorities had not supplied the copies of the documents on which they placed reliance during the enquiry proceedings. In that view of the matter, he submits that the proceedings are vitiated. Apart from that, the learned Counsel would submit that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is highly disproportionate to the charges/misconduct alleged in the charge-memo. Further, the learned Counsel would submit that since the Bank has recovered the entire amounts from the petitioner and the other parties concerned, the Bank has not suffered any monetary loss and in that view of the matter, the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority requires to be modified by this Court.
4. I have perused the charge-memo issued by the respondent-authorities. In the said charge-memo, it is alleged that the petitioner has misappropriated the funds of the Bank and thereby has violated Regulations 17 and 19 of the Cauvery Grameena Bank Staff Service Regulations. The disciplinary authority had appointed an enquiry officer, who after conducting a detailed enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner had given his findings. According to the enquiry officer, all the charges are proved against the petitioner. Basing on the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has proceeded to impose the penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 30(1)(e) of the Cauvery Grameena Bank Staff Service Regulations. In a case of this nature, where misappropriation of funds are alleged and proved by the management, it cannot be said that the punishment that is imposed by the disciplinary authority is highly disproportionate even taking into consideration that the entire amounts have been recovered from the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned Counsel Sri Appanna appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted by this Court.
5. In so far as the non-supply of the copies of the documents along with the show-cause notice is concerned, at no point of time the petitioner requested the enquiry officer to direct the Bank to supply the copies of the documents to him. It is only for the first time, this ground is being urged before this Court. In my view, if for any reason the management had not supplied the copies of the documents on which they had placed reliance, it was the obligation on the petitioner to have demanded those documents from the disciplinary authority/management. Even after this demand by the delinquent if the copies had not been supplied to him and if the respondents had relied on those documents to impose punishment on the delinquent, then only it could be said that the proceedings are vitiated and not otherwise. In that view of the matter, even this ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my view, has no merit.
6. Since I have negatived all the three contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that petitioner has not made out a case for interference by this Court. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.