Allahabad High Court
V.K. Bahadur vs State Bank Of India And Another on 1 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)AWC1617, [2000(85)FLR472], (2000)IILLJ76ALL, (2000)2UPLBEC1462
Author: M. Katju
Bench: M. Katju, D.R. Chaudhary
JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of removal dated 10.4.87 Annexure-20 to the writ petition and the appellate order dated 18.6.88 Annexure-23 to the writ petition.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Probationary officer in the State Bank of India by order dated 11.11.71 vide Annexure-1 to the petition. After completing two years of probation he was posted as a regular Officer at the Johnstonganj Branch of the Bank at Allahabad. Thereafter he was transferred to various branches. While he was posted at the Railway Colony Branch at Gorakhpur in 1983 he was placed under suspension by order dated 26.4.83 vide Annexure-2 to the petition. Subsequently a charge-sheet dated 25.1.84 was served on him vide Annexure-3 to the petition. The petitioner wrote certain letters asking for inspection of certain documents. True copies of these letters are Annexures-3 to 6 to the petition. He received a reply vide Annexure-7 to the petition stating that inspection could not be given for want of specification and relevance vide Annexure-7 to the petition. He was asked to submit a list of documents and the relevancy thereof within seven days. Thereafter a supplementary charge-sheet dated 4.4.84 was served on him vide Annexure-8 to the petition. He again wrote on 30.4.84 demanding copies of certain documents and Inspections thereof vide Annexure-9 to the petition. A reply dated 25.5.84 was sent to him again asking for specification and relevancy vide Annexure-10 to the petition. He received another letter dated 9.7.84 asking him to submit a list of documents which he wanted to peruse. The petitioner gave a list of documents for inspection vide Annexure-12 to the petition. He received a letter from the Bank directing him to make inspection of the documents at the Churk Branch of the Bank in district Mirzapur vide Annexure-13 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 14 of the petition that the petitioner was ill and hence he sent a letter and telegram requesting for adjournment of the date of inspection of the documents vide Annexures-14 and 15 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 15 that no date was fixed for inspection and instead he received a letter dated 17.5.85 asking him to be present along with his representative in the enquiry on 3.6.85 vide Annexure-16 to the petition. On 3.6.85 certain proceedings were held vide Annexure-17 to the petition and on 20.8.85 inspection of some of the documents was given. True copy of the certificate of inspection is Annexure-18 to the petition.
3. It is alleged in paragraph 19 of the petition that 2.11.85 was fixed for examining the relevance of the defence documents but unfortunately the petitioner fell ill and hence he requested for fixing some other date. A copy of his letter is Annexure-19 to the petition. In paragraph 20 of the writ petition it is alleged that the Enquiry Officer Instead of postponing the date proceeded ex parte. In paragraph 21 of the petition it is stated that only certain documents were permitted to be inspected which were perused between 26.12.85 to 30.12.85 but inspection of all the documents was not allowed. In paragraph 22 of the petition it is alleged that without giving opportunity of cross-examination and producing defence documents and defence evidence the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter the impugned removal order vide Annexure-20 was passed. In paragraph 24 of the petition it is stated that the Disciplinary Authority did not furnish a copy of the enquiry report before passing the final order but supplied it with the removal order.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal vide Annexure-21 and supplementary appeal vide Annexure-22 to the petition. However, the same was dismissed vide Annexure-23 to the petition. Aggrieved this writ petition has been filed.
5. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph 31 of the petition that he was not given personal hearing before the appellate authority. In paragraph 32 of the petition it is alleged that no case was established against the petitioner, and the only finding recorded is lack of supervision on some occasions, and this could not form the basis of imposing a major penalty. It is also alleged that the Chief Manager was not the appointing authority of the petitioner and hence he could not pass the removal order. In paragraph 34 of the petition it is stated that the Disciplinary Authority denied opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, since copy of documents were not made available nor inspection given in respect of a large number of documents.
6. The Bank has filed a counter-affidavit. In paragraph 5 of the same it is stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension for certain acts of misconduct of a serious nature committed by him when he was Branch Manager of the Churk Branch in district Mirzapur. In paragraph 7 it is stated that a detailed investigation was carried out and after being prima facie satisfied of serious lapses by the petitioner the disciplinary authority ordered initiation of departmental proceedings and hence a charge-sheet dated 25.1.84 was served on the petitioner.
7. In paragraph 8 of the same it is stated that it was open to the petitioner at all relevant time to ask for inspection of relevant documents and copies of the same. In fact in the course of the enquiry whenever relevant documents were asked for and were relied upon by the petitioner they were duly shown to the petitioner. In the charge-sheet the petitioner was required to submit his defence within ten days but no reply was submitted. The demand of the petitioner for perusal of documents without indicating the relevance thereof was not accepted. He was however, asked by letter dated 16.4.84. Annexure-7 to the petition to submit list of specific documents indicating therein the relevancy. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that after submission of the first charge-sheet fresh lapses of a gross nature committed by the petitioner came to light, which warranted issuance of a supplementary charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings duly provided inspection of relevant documents. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the counter-affidavit It is stated that the petitioner was given full opportunity to inspect the relevant documents. The enquiry officer held a preliminary by hearing on 3.6.85 which was attended by the petitioner and he agreed to the time schedule as laid down by the enquiry officer as is evident from Annexure-17 to the petition. In paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner inspected the relevant documents as is evident from the minutes of the proceedings of 26.5.1986. In paragraph 15 of the same it is stated that the list of documents dated 7.9.85 sought to be relied upon by the petitioner was submitted before the enquiry officer who objected that the list was vague and ambiguous and does not disclose the relevancy of the evidence, hence the petitioner was directed to submit a fresh list with reference to the charges levelled against him and showing the relevancy. Since in the meantime the enquiry officer had also received a request for adjournment the proceedings were adjourned with a note of warning that in future medical certificate of a private Doctor shall not be accepted unless countersigned by the Chief Medical Officer. Copy of the proceedings of 2.11.85 is Annexure-CA1. In paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the proceedings dated 10.2.86 were adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to 4.3.86. However, It was again adjourned to 10.4.86 on the request of the defence counsel but it was made clear that this adjournment was being granted in a very special case. However, on 10.4.86 neither the petitioner nor his defence counsel appeared to participate in the enquiry proceedings. Still in order to give the petitioner a fair chance the enquiry proceedings were adjourned for the last time to 7.5.86. Copy of the proceedings are Annexures-CA3, 4 and 5 to the counter-affidavit. The petitioner was thus given ample opportunity of defence. Copy of the enquiry proceedings of further dates are Annexures-CA-6, 7, 8 and 9 to the affidavit. In paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the appellate authority carefully considered the grounds of appeal and found no ground warranting interference with the removal order. True copy of the minutes of the meeting of 7.6.88 ts Annexure-CAll to the affidavit. In paragraph 24 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that on the date the disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner he was serving in a circle, hence as per the State Bank of India Regulations the appointing authority for the petitioner and other similarly placed officers was the Chief General Manager. In paragraph 26 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the imputations found proved against the petitioner, showed lack of integrity, honesty, and devotion on the part of the petitioner and his acts were highly prejudicial to the Bank's interests and hence the punishment was justified. We are of the opinion that no ground for interference with the punishment awarded to the petitioner is made out.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner only argued on the quantum of punishment and he urged that the punishment was disproportionate to the offence. We are not inclined to agree with this submission. The allegations found proved against the petitioner are of a very serious nature involving financial irregularities. A Bank runs on public confidence and if public confidence is impaired by the lack of integrity of an employee, the interest of the Bank will suffer. There is no scope of leniency in such cases as held by us in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21054 of 1998, Rom Pratap Sonkar v. Chairman and Managing Director. Allahabad Bank, Calcutta and others, decided on 28.2.2000.
9. In the aforesaid decision, we have referred to the various decisions of the Supreme Court on this point and it is not necessary for us to again refer to the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to certain observations in the impugned removal order dated 10.4.87 and submitted that it has been observed therein that there was no mala fide intention of the petitioner and there was no personal gain in issuing the Bank drafts. He submitted that the finding is only that the petitioner was highly negligent on certain occasions.
10. A perusal of the impugned removal order dated 10.4.87 however, shows that grave charges of financial irregularities have been proved against the petitioner e.g., the enquiry officer has found that imputation No. (i) to the effect that the petitioner issued a draft without corresponding debit was found proved. It was also proved that the remarks 'cancelled by me' made by him In the draft issue. Register was Intended to be in respect of the impugned draft No. 169233. Similarly. imputation No. (ii) to the effect that bills were paid by debit to charges account was found proved. Imputation No. (iv) that the petitioner was negligent in debiting arbitrarily the account of the U. P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. with the amount of interest on the term loan granted to Sri R. K. Malviya was also found proved. Similarly, the Imputation No. (ix) and (xi) were partly proved.
11. As regards the supplementary charge-sheet, it was found that the petitioner was highly negligent in discharging his duties on certain occasions and thereby acted in a manner which was prejudicial to the Bank. As regards Imputation No. (iv) it was found that with a view to provide undue accommodation to the borrower, the petitioner arbitrarily debited to the Term Loan Account and the Interest was arbitrarily debited to the Cash Credit Account of Churk Cement Factory of U. P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. and was credited to the Term Loan Account.
12. As regards Imputation (v), it has been found that undue accommodation was granted to one R. K. Malaviya. It was found that the lapses on the part of the petitioner were deliberate acts of commission and omission. Issuing a draft without corresponding debits, concealing the fact by writing 'cancelled by me' in respect of the draft form used to issue the said draft, granting undue accommodation and unfair gain to the borrower and manipulating accounts of the Bank's customers, deliberately withholding Demand Draft for large amounts for long periods, negotiating a cheque without keeping sufficient balance in the Account-all these and other imputation were found proved in the enquiry and they show lack of integrity, honesty and devotion on the part of the petitioner in discharging his duty and it was highly prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. This Court cannot interfere with such findings of fact recorded by the enquiry officer, "under Article 226 of the Constitution."
13. Thus the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner and there was no personal gain is not tenable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred only to the concluding part of the findings, but it is settled law that a document has to be read as a whole, and stray observations in a document or order cannot be read in isolation. As already stated by us above, a Bank runs on public confidence and no leniency can be shown where allegations of lack of integrity or devotion to duty are found proved against a Bank employee. In this respect greater Integrity and devotion to duty is required from Bank employees as compared to employees of other organisation. Any leniency shown in such matters would be wholly uncalled for and misplaced, vide Disciplinary Authority v. N. B. Patnaik, 1996 (9) SCC 69.
14. In Ram Pratap Sonker's case (supra), this Court has distinguished the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer, 1997 ACJ 896 and in State Bank of India v. T. J. Paul JT 1999 (3) SC 385. In fact in State Bank of India v. T. J. Paul (supra), the Supreme Court held that in the case of a Bank employee even if there was no actual loss to the Bank the employee can yet be held guilty of major misconduct.
15. Thus, this is not a fit case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed.