Chattisgarh High Court
Uco Bank And Others vs Rajendra Shankar Shukla on 7 May, 2010
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No 60 of 2007
UCO Bank and others
...Petitioners
versus
Rajendra Shankar Shukla
...Respondents
! Shri UN Awasthy Senior Advocate with Shri MK Sinha counsel for the appellants
^ Shri KR Nair counsel for the respondent
CORAM : Honble Shri Justice IM Quddusi J and Honble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra J
Dated : 7/5/2010
: Judgement
Writ Appeal under Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh High
Court Appeal to Division Bench Act 2006
JUDGMENT
Delivered on 7/5/2010 Per Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.:
The appellants/Bank have preferred this writ appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3692/2000 allowing the writ petition quashing the order dated 30-6-1999 (Annexure P-21 with the writ petition) imposing the punishment of dismissal from the Bank's service.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the writ petitioner was working as Manager in the appellants/Bank and at the relevant time was posted at the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Extension Counter, Raipur. One cheque for a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs from the personal and private savings account jointly held by the writ petitioner and his wife was issued on 25-1-1991 in favour of his brother Shri V.K.Shukla and on 6-3-1991 stop-payment instruction was issued and the same was delivered at the main branch of the Bank at Raipur through the writ petitioner's son. The payee Shri V.K.Shukla presented the cheque for payment on 2-4- 1991 at the Raipur branch and the officers/officials working at the Raipur branch immediately made credit entry in the passbook of Shri V.K.Shukla and send the cheque to the extension counter for offering the credit to the Raipur branch on the same day without verifying about the sufficiency of the fund in the account of the writ petitioner and/or whether there was any stop- payment instruction made by the writ petitioner. The cheque was dishonoured on account of stop-payment instruction. The said Shri V.K.Shukla, on the basis of entries made in his passbook, issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1 Lakh in favour of his wife on 25-1-1991, which was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of fund in the account of Shri V.K.Shukla. A civil suit was filed against the Bank by Shri V.K.Shukla for not honouring the cheque issued by him in favour of his wife. Shri V.K.Shukla served a legal notice on the Bank whereupon Bank's Senior Manager was directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry by order dated 21-5-1991 (Annexure P-5 with the writ petition). In the meantime, the writ petitioner was promoted to the next higher grade by order dated 19-7-1994 (Annexure P-6 with the writ petition) with effect from 4-6-1993 and he was further allowed to cross the efficiency bar by order dated 12-8- 1996 (Annexure P-7 with the writ petition) with effect from 1-6-1996.
3. The appellants/Bank issued a charge-sheet dated 20- 5-1998, i.e., after 7+ years to the writ petitioner containing the following charges:
"(I) Shri R.S.Shukla issued/got issued a cheque on his joint account without making any arrangement of adequate balance and intention to honour it, only to cause wrongful benefit to his relative at the cost of the Bank. He has thus failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty, which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.
(II) Shri Shukla, by making available the official correspondence (exchanged between Regional Office, Raipur and his branch) to his son which he later quoted in his proposal for compromise of Transport Loan availed by him, has not only acted against the interest of the Bank but also has deliberately divulged information of a confidential nature to a person - his son, not entitled to it, which is violative of Regulation 4 of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.
(III) By availing loans and that also frequently, far in excess of the permissible amount against NSCs and FDRs without paying interest at the applicable rates, Shri R.S.Shukla has failed to discharge his duties with devotion, honesty and utmost integrity.
This act is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended."
4. After submission of his reply on 22-6-1998, the writ petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, was retired from Bank's service on 31-1- 1999. After completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 7-5-1999 (Annexure P-16 with the writ petition) in the following manner with respect to each of the three charges:
"Charge No.(I):
Shri R.S. Shukla has failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty, which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended -
Hence, I hold the Charge No.1 as proved.
Charge No.(II):
Shri R.S.Shukla has not acted against the interest of the Bank, and has not divulged information of a confidential nature to his son, not entitled to it -
I, therefore, hold the Charge No.2 as not proved.
Charge No.(III):
Shri R.S.Shukla has failed to discharge his duties with devotion, honesty and utmost integrity which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended -
Hence, the Charge No.3 stands proved."
5. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from the Bank's service in respect of charge No.1, reduction of basic-pay by two stages in respect of charge No.2 and censure in respect of charge No.3 by order dated 30-6-1999 (Annexure P-21 with the writ petition). Appeal preferred by the writ petitioner before the appellate authority was dismissed.
6. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition after holding that the alleged conduct of the writ petitioner does not constitute misconduct in terms of the provisions contained in the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (henceforth `the Conduct Regulations, 1976'). The learned Single Judge has also found that the enquiry against the writ petitioner can be proceeded with under the provisions of the UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and not under the provisions of the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 because the writ petitioner had already retired on 31-1- 1999, whereas the order imposing penalty was passed on 30-6-1999. With respect to the charges No.2 and 3 also, the learned Single Judge has found that when the enquiry officer has found the charge No.2 as not proved, the disciplinary authority should have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner before imposing minor penalty after disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer.
7. In this writ appeal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants/Bank has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated and interpreted the provisions of the Conduct Regulations, 1976 and that on a proper interpretation and application of the provisions of the Conduct Regulations, 1976, the conduct of the writ petitioner was a clear case of misconduct because his conduct was unbecoming of a Bank officer and that on account of his questionable conduct, the Bank was served with legal notice and a civil suit was filed by Shri V.K.Shukla, which has affected the reputation of the Bank and thus by virtue of Regulation 3 read with Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations, 1976, the imposition of penalty on the writ petitioner was absolutely well-founded and the learned Single Judge has erred by interfering with the order of penalty imposed upon the writ petitioner.
8. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants/Bank placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in State Bank of India and another vs. Bela Bagchi and others, AIR 2005 SC 3272 to canvass that an order of dismissal can be passed even after retirement as also for the proposition that the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 15 of the report that a Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity while dealing with the money of the depositors and the customers and that every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has argued that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity and no interference is called for.
10. In State Bank of India and another vs. Bela Bagchi and others (supra), the employee had allegedly received money from an account-holder for depositing in his Savings Bank Account but did not deposit the amount. He made a fictitious credit entry in the passbook of the account-holder. This act was repeated on number of occasions. In the said case, the employee was due for superannuation in April, 1988, however, during continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, the Bank, by its order dated 22-4-1988, intimated the employee that it had been decided to grant extension of service by a period of three months with effect from 1-5-1988 to 31-7-1988 to facilitate completion of departmental proceedings against the Bank employee. He was later on dismissed from Bank's service by order dated 2-7-1988 while he was in service of the Bank during extended period.
The case of State Bank of India and another vs. Bela Bagchi and others (supra) is, thus, clearly distinguishable on facts. It is not the case of the appellants/Bank that at any point of time before 31-1- 1999, i.e., before the retirement of the writ petitioner any order was passed extending his services for continuation of the disciplinary proceedings. The charges in the case of State Bank of India and another vs. Bela Bagchi and others (supra) were also with respect to dishonesty and lack of integrity, whereas in the present case, the charge is with respect to issuing a cheque from his personal account and thereafter issuing instruction of stop-payment. Thus, with respect to the nature of charges as well as with respect to the extension of services, the case of State Bank of India and another vs. Bela Bagchi and others (supra) is distinguishable and is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
11. In State Bank of India vs. A.N. Gupta and others, (1997) 8 SCC 60, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 16 of the report that proceedings in the garb of disciplinary proceedings cannot be permitted after an employee has ceased to be in the service of the Bank as service rules do not provide for continuation of disciplinary proceedings after the date of superannuation. Before us also, the appellants/Bank have not pointed out any provision in the relevant service rules, which permits the Bank to continue the disciplinary proceedings after the superannuation of the writ petitioner.
12. With regard to the argument about the charge No.1 constituting misconduct, it is to be seen that the writ petitioner, at the relevant time, was not dealing with any account of the customers nor was the subject issuance of cheque had any relation with respect to the relation of the Bank with any other customer or any transaction. The writ petitioner, while issuing a cheque from his personal account was himself a customer and thus his status at the time of issuance of a cheque was not of an employee but that of a customer and as such he was within his rights to issue a cheque and thereafter to issue stop-payment instruction. His action or conduct was absolutely personal to him and the consequences of issuance of cheque and stop-payment instruction was to be suffered by him and not by the Bank. If any incorrect credit entry was made by the officers of the Raipur branch of the Bank in the passbook of Shri V.K.Shukla when the cheque was presented at the Raipur branch, the mistake was of the officers posted at the Raipur branch and not of the writ petitioner, who had already issued stop-payment instruction. It is also to be seen that an employee of a Bank is not under any obligation to open an account in the Bank in which he is in service and that he can open his account in any other Bank also, thus, his relationship vis--vis operation of his personal account is that of a Banker and customer and as such his conduct of issuing a cheque and then issuing stop- payment instruction does not constitute misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3 read with Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations, 1976.
13. We do not find any good ground for interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE