Kerala High Court
C.V.Joseph vs Syndicate Bank on 21 May, 2019
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: V.Chitambaresh, Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941
WA.No. 1145 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 1738/2007 of HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 07-08-2017
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
C.V.JOSEPH
AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.C.P.VARGHESE,K.P.IV/50,
CHOOZHAMPALA, MUKKOLA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
(FORMERLY WORKING AS BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK,
PUNALUR BRANCH).
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE
SRI.S.JUSTUS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SYNDICATE BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (P),HEAD OFFICE,
MANIPAL 576 119,KARNATAKA STATE.
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER (P)
SYNDICATE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL - 576 119,
KARNATAKA STATE.
3 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P)
SYNDICATE BANK, HEAD OFFICE,MANIPAL - 576 119,
KARNATAKA STATE.
4 D.PADMANABHAN
REGIONAL MANAGER & ENQUIRY OFFICER,SYNDICATE BANK,
REGIONAL OFFICE,KANNUR - 670 001.
5 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SYNDICATE BANK, CORPORATE OFFICE,
BANGALORE - 560 002, KARNATAKA STATE.
BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SC, SYNDICATE BANK
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.05.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1145/18
-2-
J U D G M E N T
Ashok Menon, J.
A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity. He is the custodian of money deposited by public. He is therefore required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank. [Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others v. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364)]
2. Appellant was a Bank Manager dismissed from service following a disciplinary enquiry. He filed WP(C) No.1738/2007 challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment awarded to him. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 07.08.2017, dismissed the Writ. Appellant is aggrieved, and hence before us in appeal.
3. The facts in a nutshell is thus:-
Appellant was the Manager of Syndicate Bank, at Thiruvananthapuram Fort Branch. The branch being WA No.1145/18 -3- located near Sree Padmanabha Swami temple and Pazhavangadi temple, hundi collections of these temples were remitted in the branch at frequent intervals, resulting in the Bank dealing with huge quantities of coins of various denominations. The appellant being the Manager of the Bank was the custodian of Bank keys. On 24.06.2005, discrepancy was noticed in the closing cash balance, which was reported to the Senior Branch Manager. Consequent verification revealed shortage of cash balance. Ext.P7 preliminary enquiry report by the Chief Manager of the Regional Office suggested supervisory lapse consequent to which the appellant was placed under suspension by the Deputy General Manager vide Ext.P8 order on 06.10.2005.
4. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him, containing nine heads of charges, the main among them being the shortage of coins amounting to Rs.10.78 lakhs by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank, who is also the WA No.1145/18 -4- disciplinary authority.
5. Regional Manager of the Bank at Kannur, the fourth respondent, conducted the enquiry, and found charge Nos.1 to 8 proved in its entirety, while charge No.9 was found to be partly proved vide Ext.P13 report.
6. Based on these reports, the third respondent vide Ext.P14 order dated 21.07.2006 directed the appellant to be compulsorily retired treating the period of suspension as "Not on Duty"
and denied back wages, notional increments and consequential benefits to the appellant.
7. The impugned order was challenged before the second respondent and vide Ext.P16 order dated 03.10.2006, the appeal was dismissed. Review preferred by the appellant before the Executive Director of the Bank, fifth respondent, was also rejected on 05.01.2007 vide Ext.P18 and hence, the appellant was constrained to file this Writ Petition seeking interference of this Court under Article 226 WA No.1145/18 -5- of the Constitution of India.
8. The appellant would contend that the orders made against him are illegal, improper and without consideration of facts. There is no finding as to when exactly the amount went missing. Who appropriated the cash found missing, has not been revealed in the investigation by the Police, Bank and the Vigilance Department. There were also others in the Bank who held the keys of the safe room and the locker as joint custodians. There is no finding about the extent of their responsibility with regard to the shortage of coins.
9. It is also urged for the appellant that the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged act of the appellant. The appellant would contend that because of the compulsory retirement almost three years ahead of his superannuation, the appellant had lost the fruits of his long service to the Bank. He could not get the benefits of the enhanced pay, as the pensionary benefits were fixed on the basis of WA No.1145/18 -6- the pre-revised pay. He also lost on account of not getting the revised gratuity and other benefits.
10. The appellant would also submit that the Senior Officers of the Bank were in inimical terms with him for the reason that he had filed a complaint against Indian Airlines, a valuable customer of the Bank, before the Consumer Court and that despite the seniors advising him to withdraw that complaint, he did not oblige.
11. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
12. The impugned judgment has been assailed for the reason that the learned Single Judge failed to interfere with the report on the basis that it will not fall within the scope of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was observed that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The argument of the WA No.1145/18 -7- petitioner that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct proved was also not accepted by the learned Single Judge.
13. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found that the petitioner had already crossed the age of superannuation and even if the petitioner's case is considered for reinstatement, no purpose would be served. The punishment imposed was one that of compulsory retirement with all retiral benefits and therefore, it could not be said to have been disproportionate.
14. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was the Manager of the Branch, where the missing money was stored. The fact that the coins were very bulky and that the Bank did not have sufficient space to store the coins safely and that the appellant had even made a complaint to the higher- ups regarding the paucity of space, are all, no reasons to exonerate him of his liability. The responsibility is solely upon him, as the Manager, WA No.1145/18 -8- to store the available cash in the Bank and to see that it is not pilfered. Even a small pilferage would make the Manager responsible. In the instant case, what has been pilfered or lost is a substantial sum amounting to Rs.10.78 lakhs. Coins to make up that much of amount would definitely be huge in quantity and the appellant as the Manager, could not shirk responsibility by saying that such shortfall of cash in custody of the Bank escaped his notice. The joint responsibility of others would definitely not exonerate him. He ought to have made arrangements for the safe upkeep of the cash in whatever manner it was possible to see that it is not pilfered. Having failed in his duty, he had to face the disciplinary enquiry in which, all the main charges were found against him. The appellant had not been able to point his finger at any discrepancy that has occurred in the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry initiated against him. There is no technical flaw or violation of natural WA No.1145/18 -9- justice nor any infringement of legal requirements.
15. The learned Single Judge has discussed all these facts in detail to arrive at a conclusion that there was no reason for the Court to interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority against the appellant.
16. We also are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge regarding the fact that the punishment imposed on the appellant was not disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shocks the conscience of the Court, there is no scope for interference [V. Ramana v. A.P.SRTC and others ((2005) 7 SCC 338)]. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P and others [2013 KHC 4118] is regarding imposing of inequal punishment to equally placed co- delinquents. This decision will not in any way assist the appellant in getting the punishment set aside.
WA No.1145/18-10-
The appellant has received all his retiral benefits. The fact that he was under suspension during the period the pay was revised and therefore did not get the benefits of the pay revision cannot be a reason to find that the punishment was disproportionate. The appeal therefore fails. The findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is upheld and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE Sd/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg