Allahabad High Court
Bank Of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Center ... vs Anurag Kumar And Another on 14 October, 2019
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 32 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 763 of 2019 Appellant :- Bank Of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Center And Another Respondent :- Anurag Kumar And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Archana Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anant Kumar Tiwari,Shiv Sagar Singh Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 2 of 2019.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Cause shown in the application is sufficient and there is no objection from the counsel for respondent to condone the delay.
The Delay Condonation Application is accordingly allowed.
Office is directed to allot regular number to the Special Appeal.
Order on Special Appeal.
Heard learned Senior Counsel, Shri Ashok Khare assisted by Ms. Dolly Dwivedi on behalf of the appellants and learned counsel Shri Shiv Sagar Singh appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.
The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.05.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 1283 of 2014 (Anurag Kumar Vs. Bank of Baroda through M.D. and 02 others) seeking a relief that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition, be set aside.
From the perusal of record, it is apparent that on account of the alleged fraud committed by the respondent, the appellant bank suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000.00. A show cause notice was issued to respondent No. 1 and a charge sheet dated 09.02.2005 was also issued. In disciplinary proceedings the respondent No. 1 was found guilty of the charges levelled upon him and accordingly, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment upon him of removal from service by order dated 31.03.2006, which was challenged by him in Writ - A No. 24618 of 2006. The writ petition was disposed of quashing the order dated 31.03.2006 and directing the disciplinary authority i.e. Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Agra Region to pass order in the light of the observations made in the writ court's order without being influenced by the letter of Vigilance Department dated 12.01.2006. Thereafter, by a detailed and speaking order dated 14.06.2013 the respondent was imposed with punishment of dismissal from service without notice. The said order was challenged in writ petition No. 1283 of 2014 and by the impugned order dated 13.05.2019 the said writ petition was allowed and the order dated 14.06.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority was set aside with a direction to pass a fresh order. The order of the writ court dated 13.05.2019 is now challenged by the appellants.
It has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for appellants that the writ petition filed against the order dated 14.06.2013 was not maintainable on account of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal as is provided in Service Rules and was erroneously allowed by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Senior Counsel has further argued that the order of dismissal passed by the appointing authority after a full-fledged inquiry cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction straight-way as held by the Apex Court in State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (2013) 2 SCC 740.
Further submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the learned Single Judge could not have entered into the merits of the case in writ jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank & another Vs. Munna Lal Jain (2005) 10 SCC 84 wherein it has been held that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.
It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the regulation ensures that every officer at all times take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank officer. It is submitted by him that the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order as in cases of financial misappropriation the disciplinary authority is fully empowered to conduct a full-fledged inquiry and impose the appropriate punishment upon the officer found guilty and against the order passed by the disciplinary authority an alternative remedy of appeal has been provided in the Service Rules and the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with an administrative order in writ jurisdiction as is held in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank (supra).
It is also submitted that the respondent purchased the two Demand Drafts from Begum Bridge, Meerut Branch of the Bank of Baroda on 23.12.2000 and thereafter, by his letter dated 05.10.2001 he misguided the Begum Bridge Branch and requested for cancellation of the said demand drafts as the same were reported to be lost in transit though the said drafts were already got encashed by Mr. Dinesh Chand in whose favour the said Drafts were prepared, on 08.02.2001. As such, there was no question for the respondent to have issued a letter to the Bank for cancelling the demand drafts issued in favour of Mr. Dinesh Chand. It is only on the misrepresentation by respondent, Begum Bridge Branch issued a letter to Saharanpur Branch of Bank to issue "Non Payment Advice" on 23.10.2001 with respect to the said demand drafts. Further, submission is that no communication or complaint was made by Dinesh Chand with regard to non receipt of Bank Drafts or money against it.
It is further submitted that in fact fraud was played by the respondent by misleading the Bank that Bank Drafts were lost during transit as such could not be encashed, as such the conduct of respondent cannot be said to be bonafide. Thus, he was rightly found guilty in disciplinary proceeding and was punished with dismissal from service.
The matter requires consideration.
Four weeks time is granted to the learned counsel for respondent to file counter affidavit. Three weeks time thereafter is allowed to the appellants to file rejoinder affidavit, if any.
List thereafter.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the effect and operation of the judgment and order dated 13.05.2019 passed in writ petition No. 1283 of 2014 (Anurag Kumar Vs. Bank of Baroda) shall remain stayed until further orders of this Court.
Order Date :- 14.10.2019 LBY