Kerala High Court
C.V.Joseph vs Syndicate Bank on 16 August, 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/16TH SRAVANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 1738 of 2007 (F)
---------------------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
C.V.JOSEPH, AGED 58,
S/O. C.P. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT K.P.IV/50,
CHOOZHAMPALA, MUKKOLA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
FORMERLY WORKING AS BRANCH MANAGER,
SYNDICATE BANK, PUNALUR BRANCH.
BY SRI.MATHAI M PAIKADAY,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADVS.SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G
SMT. LILA SIMON
SRI.JOSE THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. SYNDICATE BANK,
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER (P)
HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL.
2. GENERAL MANAGER (P), SYNDICATE BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL.
3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P),
SYNDICATE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL.
4. D. PADMANABHAN,
THE REGIONAL MANAGER & ENQUIRY OFFICER,
SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR.
5. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SYNDICATE BANK, CORPORATE OFFICE, BANGALORE.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA
R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 1738 of 2007 (F)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 16/08/2004 ISSUED BY SENIOR
MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK TO THE PETITIONER.
P2 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY ASST. MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK TO THE
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK.
P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/9/2004 SENT BY SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER,
SYNDICATE BANK TO THE REGIONAL MANAGER, PREMISES & MAINTENANCE
CELL.
P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/10/2004 SENT BY SENIOR BRANCH
MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK TO THE REGIONAL MANAGER, SECURITY
CELL.
P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/6/2005 SENT BY JOINT CUSTODIAN, FORT
BRANCH TO THE SENIOR BANK MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK
P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/6/2005 SENT BY JOINT CUSTODIANS, FORT
BRANCH, TO THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK.
P7 COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 2/7/2005
P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK TO THE PETITIONER.
P9 COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 1/12/2005 FRAMED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY.
P10 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2005 OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER (P), DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, SYNDICATE BANK TO THE
PETITIONER.
P11 COPY OF THE BRIEF DATED 4/4/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESENTING
OFFICER ON BEHALF OF THE BANK
P12 COPY OF THE WRITTEN BRIEF PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
ENQUIRY OFFICER DATED 19/4/2006
P13 COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 16/5/2006 OF THE INQUIRY
AUTHORITY
P14 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/7/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
2/-
-2-
WP(C).No. 1738 of 2007 (F)
P15 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 16/8/2006 PREFERRED BY
PETITIONER BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER, SYNDICATE BAN WHO IS
THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
P16 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, SYNDICATE BAN
WHO IS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NO.50/PD:IRD/DA-7 DATED 3/10/2006
P17 COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 30/10/2006
P18 COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING REVIEW PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER
DATED 30/10/2006
P19 COPY OF THE KEY HANDLING REGISTER SHOWING DETAILS FOR THE
PERIOD FROM 10/1/2005 TO 5/8/2005.
P20 COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 30/5/2005
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No.1738 of 2007
------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, while working as Manager of the Fort Branch of the Syndicate Bank, was proceeded under the disciplinary proceedings. Based on the enquiry, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him. He appealed against that decision before the appellate authority which was unsuccessful. Challenging the decision of the appellate authority, the petitioner approached this Court.
2. The Fort Branch of the Syndicate Bank is having accounts belonged to Padmanabha Swamy Temple and Pazhavangadi Ganapathy Temple. The collections of these temples are brought in large quantity to the Bank, mainly in different denominations of coins. The Bank functions in a two storied building. The upper portion is occupied by the Manager. In the downstairs, the sub-staff and others are placed. It was reported that a sum of Rs.10.78 lakhs is missing from the Bank. W.P.(C) No.1738/2007 2 This missing amount are the missing coins deposited by the temple authorities. Consequently, the petitioner was charge sheeted for nine charges, and eight charges were proved against the petitioner. All the charges would show that there are serious lapses on the part of the petitioner in discharging his duties. The supervisory lapse caused the Bank huge loss as above.
3. The petitioner's case before this Court is that administrative lapses and laches during the routine course of the business cannot be termed as misconduct to proceed under the disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed is not based on the severity of the misconduct proved. Therefore, interference is called for.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank would submit that the scope of judicial review is limited. This Court cannot sit up on decision as an appellate authority by scanning the evidence and decide the matter. It is further submitted that there were materials on record to link the petitioner with the misconduct alleged against him. Learned counsel relied on the judgments in Balbir Chand vs. Food Corporation of India Ltd and others ((1997) 3 SCC 371), Chairman and Managing Director, W.P.(C) No.1738/2007 3 United Commercial Bank and others vs. P.C. Kakkar ((2003) 4 SCC 364), V. Ramana vs. A.P.SRTC and others ((2005) 7 SCC 338) and in State Bank of India and another vs. Bela Bagchi and others ((2005) 7 SCC 435).
5. The enquiry report is produced as Ext.P13. The petitioner was a joint custodian of the keys. He had given the coin packets to one Latha, sub-staff for sorting and also for making smaller packets of 100 denominations. The missing of the coins happened during the petitioner's tenure as the Manager and the custodian. It is found out that the petitioner did not make necessary safeguards to ensure that no pilferage takes place. The enquiry officer had considered all the aspects in the matter and also analysed the evidence. He noted that there is exchange of coins to some of the firms in Thiruvananthapuram and there was complete failure in exercising the power of control over such exchange, which means in the guise of exchange, pilferage was allowed to happen. It is also noted that Latha, sub- staff, was taken out the coins for exchange without getting it properly accounted for. There was also failure on the part of the petitioner to monitor and supervise whether coins were taken by W.P.(C) No.1738/2007 4 Latha to other branches.
6. As noted above, there were evidence and materials before the enquiry officer to conclude that there was supervisory laches and lapses on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, it is beyond the scope of interference of this Court sitting upon in exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer.
7. The next point to be considered is whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the severity of the misconduct proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P and others (2013 KHC 4118), submitted that action of the disciplinary authority imposing harsher punishment is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case especially when the petitioner's conduct does not amount to any criminal offence. It is pointed out that the laches and lapses do not have the overtone of any criminal offence.
8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that the Bank had taken a lenient view in the matter and imposed W.P.(C) No.1738/2007 5 only compulsory retirement with all retiral benefits. It is also submitted that the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused in a criminal case.
The petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation. He is out of service for the last more than a decade. There were no interim orders in the matter. Even if the petitioner's case is considered for reinstatement, no purpose would be served. Since the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement with all retiral benefits, this Court is of the view that the punishment imposed need not be interfered with.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp