Jharkhand High Court
Sheo Nandan Prasad (S.N. Prasad) vs Uco Bank And Ors. on 3 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006(4)JCR323(JHR)]
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.
Page 2665
1. The petitioner was departmentally proceeded by the UCO Bank for the allegations that while he was posted as Assistant Manager (Cash) at Bermo Branch, received various amounts aggregating Rs. 28085/- from 45 locker hirers on different dates for depositing towards their locker rent, but he did not account for these sum in bank books and did not deposit these money in the bank. Instead in violation of bank's rules and procedures unauthorisedly, most irregularly and fraudulently retained the amount aggregating Rs. 28085/- with himself with an intent to cause wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the bank and thereby failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty and derived pecuniary benefit for himself.
The second charge was that he in complete violation of Bank's and procedures most irregularly issued acknowledgment of receipt of cash to the locker hirers and also made corresponding fake entries in the locker rent received register, for the amount fraudulently retained by him.
2. By the terms of enquiry report contained in Annesxure-4 to this writ petition both the charges were held to be proved against the petitioner.
3. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Dy. General Manager by his order dated 05/11/1998, contained in Annexure-6 by a reasoned order imposed major penalty on the petitioner of compulsory retirement from service and for recovery of the amount of Rs. 28085=00 from his terminal benefits.
4. The petitioner thereafter preferred appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 16/09/1999, contained in Annexure-8 to this writ application.
5. The petitioner has challenged the departmental enquiry to be illegal on two counts:
Firstly, that the enquiry report was antedated and manufactured one, in view of the fact that the enquiry continued up to 01/09/1998 but the report was submitted even prior to that on 13/07/1998;
Page 2666 Secondly, that during enquiry, the petitioner had demanded several important documents but the same were not supplied to him, there was denial of reasonable opportunity to defend.
The petitioner has also challenged the order of punishment (Annexure-6) on the ground Unit before imposing penalty, second notice to show cause was not given to him and that even the copy of the Enquiry Report was not supplied to him before the order of punishment and the order dated 16/09/1999 passed by the appellant authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner contained in Annexure-8.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to enquiry report Annexure-4 and submitted that on the first page of the said report it is mentioned that the enquiry was finally concluded on 01/09/1998 but on the last page of the Report the date has been mentioned as 13/07/1998 therefore, the enquiry report was antedated and is a manufactured document.
7. Learned Counsel further submitted that non-supply of the enquiry report and non-issue of second show cause notice before awarding punishment makes the order of punishment to be illegal and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In this regard he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. ".
8. On the other hand Mr. Manish Kumar Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents UCO Bank has strongly supported the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner and submitted that the charges against the petitioner were very grave in nature and the same stood proved in the departmental enquiry.
9. He further submitted that the UCO Bank officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1976 which is applicable in the case of the petitioner, there is no requirement that before awarding punishment by the Disciplinary Authority, copy of enquiry report has to be supplied to the charged officer. He further submitted in this regard, that after the punishment order, copy of the enquiry report has to be supplied to the delinquent so that if he wants to file appeal against the said order of punishment he may prefer the appeal.
10. He further submitted that the petitioner has not been able to show that due to non-supply of the enquiry report before awarding punishment he was in any manner prejudiced.
In support of his submission he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan .
11. So far as the argument of the petitioner that the enquiry report was antedated or manufactured, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that there is no doubt that the enquiry was finally concluded on 01/09/1998 but due to a bonafide human and clerical error, the date has wrongly been put as 13/07/1998 in the last page of the report and, therefore on that account the report cannot be said to be antedated or manufactured.
12. After considering the respective cases of the parties and the rival contentions, I find that it is a case in which an officer of the Bank has tried to shake the faith of general public particularly of the customers of the Bank in the banking business by his serious misconduct.
Page 2667 In the language of the Supreme Court, in the Banking business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the Bank Officer. If this is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositor would be impaired.
Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Union Bank of India (Supra).
In the said decision, the Supreme Court after noticing its earlier decision in the case of 'Managing Director ECIL' (Supra) wherein it was held that the court/ Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as in regrettable being done at present. The Court should avoid resorting to short cuts and accordingly, it was held that unless it is demonstrated as to how any prejudice was caused due to non-supply of the enquiry report, the enquiry can be vitiated on that account.
Moreover, the UCO Bank officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 also does not provide that before awarding penalty, copy of the enquiry report or the second show cause notice has to be given to the charged officer.
In such a situation, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Union Bank of India" (Supra), I hold that since the petitioner failed to show any prejudice caused to him due to non-supply of enquiry report and, therefore, the order of punishment, contained in Annexure-6 cannot be said to be illegal.
13. The order of the Appellate Authority (Annexure-8) also does not suffer from any infirmity. The submission of the petitioner that it is a non-speaking order cannot be accepted because from the said order it is apparent that the appellate authority has passed the order after applying his judicial mind and on consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and, as such, it does not require any interference.
14. In view of the discussions and findings above, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.