Punjab-Haryana High Court
N.K.Swami vs Punjab National Bank on 27 May, 2011
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9087 OF 2011 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: MAY 27 ,2011
N.K.Swami
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner, an employee of Punjab National Bank, has filed this writ petition to challenge the order of his dismissal from service and so also the order dismissing the appeal and review against the said order.
Having been appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier on 13.2.1975, the petitioner was promoted and was working as J.M.G.S. The petitioner was served a charge sheet on 2.1.2008, containing allegation that he had been managing the affairs of Credit and Thrift Society as its President without seeking permission from the Bank, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9087 OF 2011 :{ 2 }:
where he has failed to honour the commitment of payment to the depositors of the Society, which adversely affected the image and credibility of the Bank. The three article of charges preferred against the petitioner were as under:-
"ARTICLE:I He is found to have been managing the affairs of a Credit & Thrift Society under the name and style as `The PNB Employees Coop Urban (SE) Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Ambala City as it President without bank's permission.
ARTICLE:II He has indulged in the act of parallel banking, which is against bank's interest and service conditions. ARTICLE:III He has failed to honor his commitments of payments to depositors of the society resulting in erosion of his credibility which adversely affected the image and credibility of the bank."
The petitioner submitted his reply, contending that there were 7 other members, managing the Society, which was a registered Society. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a supplementary charge sheet on 6.12.2008, wherein article (iii-a) was preferred as under:-
"ARTICLE:III(a) He has failed to honour his commitments of payments to depositors of the society resulting in erosion of his CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9087 OF 2011 :{ 3 }:
credibility which adversely affected the image and credibility of the bank."
Enquiry was held, where the petitioner was found guilty of the allegations so made against him. Disciplinary Authority then imposed a penalty of dismissal from service on 2.4.2009. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same, which was rejected on 2.9.2009. The petitioner then filed a review petition on 21.1.2010, which was dismissed on 11.6.2010. The petitioner, thus, has filed the present writ petition to challenge these orders.
The main submission of the petitioner is that the allegations made against him would not reveal any misconduct. Besides, he has pleaded that the punishment imposed is very harsh and disproportionate to the nature of allegations made.
The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is for managing the affairs of the Society without seeking permission from the Bank. Any employee of the Bank or public service can not arrogate to himself the powers to run any Society or be a part of any Society, which may directly or indirectly interfere with or would effect his functioning as an employee. The Society, which the petitioner was managing, had been accepting deposit from the public and re-paying the same on demand, as was confirmed by the witnesses examined during enquiry. It was accordingly found that the Society was doing a banking business. Finding also is that for every `100/- earned, `70/- would go to the Members. Atleast 25% was to be kept as reserved fund and not exceeding 5% to cooperative education fund and rest was to be divided amongst the Members etc. A person working in a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9087 OF 2011 :{ 4 }:
Bank can not be permitted to indulge in parallel banking, wherein he would be interested in seeking deposit for such Society, rather than looking after the interest of the Bank. One of the witnesses, in fact has deposed before the Enquiry Officer that because of the petitioner, who was personally known to him, he had handed over a sum of `3,00,000/- in personal capacity and he was to return the same personally. This was done on 5 to 6 occasions. There is allegation of non-payment of the deposit amount by the Society, which was certainly a blameworthy misconduct alleged against the petitioner. I am, thus, not inclined to accept the submissions made by the counsel that the act on the part of the petitioner, being the Member of the Society or its President, has got no concern with his responsibility as a banker or his services towards the Bank. Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, it can not be said that the punishment would in any manner be harsh or disproportionate. Except for so stating, no submission is made by the counsel to show as to how the punishment would operate harshly in such a situation.
The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine.
May 27,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE