The inquiry proceedings (conducted by the Agent, who was the Inquiry Officer), produced before the Labour Court, shows that the respondent was examined in the first instance. After eliciting answers regarding the duration of his employment, in the Institution, and as to the nature of the work he was discharging, he was asked about the charge-sheet served on him, as well as the explanation, furnished by him. The respondent has categorically answered to the effect that he has understood the charge-sheet and that he does not want to add anything more to the explana· tion that he has already submitted. This · answer must have reference to the explanation, furnished by him, on June 20, 1961, in answer to the charge-sheet, wherein he has admitted his mis· take in sanctioning the overdrafts, to the parties concerned, with· out obtaining the sanction of the appropriate authorities. But, inasmuch as he has stated, in his explanation, that on prior occa· sions also overdrafts have been allowed beyond the permissible limits, certain questions were put to him, in respect of those mat· ters. The respondent, no doubt, appears to have stated that some of the cheques, issued to the parties concerned, have been initialled by an Officer of the Bank, Mr. Bhatena. The respon· dent, again, s_quarely admitted, in his answers, that he has com· mitted a blunder in granting advances, on his own responsibility, of about Rs. 87,000. He has also admitted that he did not make any reference to the Agent, when passing the cheques, regarding the accounts of Messrs. Evergreen Paper Syndicate or Messrs. Ookul Chand Radharam.
