Delhi High Court
Mrs. Sneh Gupta vs Syndicate Bank & Ors. on 19 October, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19th October, 2012
+ W.P.(C) No.3481/1999
MRS. SNEH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
Versus
SYNDICATE BANK & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. None has appeared for the petitioner; considering that the writ petition is of the year 1999, it is not deemed expedient to await the petitioner. With the assistance of the counsel for the respondent Bank, the records have been perused.
2. The petition impugns, the order dated 14.11.1998 of the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from service of the Bank on the petitioner, as also the order dated 04.02.1999 of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petition also seeks mandamus to the respondent Bank to W.P.(C) No.3481/1999 Page 1 of 10 reinstate the petitioner in the same capacity in the Bank with all consequential benefits.
3. Rule was issued on 28.05.1999. The petition was dismissed for non appearance of the petitioner on 05.05.2003. The petitioner, in the year 2010 applied for restoration and though it was held in the order dated 20.05.2010 on the said application that the petitioner is grossly negligent but still the writ petition was restored to its original position with a warning to the petitioner to remain careful in future. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner has chosen not to appear.
4. The petitioner joined the respondent Bank as a Clerk on 26.10.1973 and was on 03.06.1985 selected as Officer Grade-I. While working in the Asaf Ali Road Branch of the Bank, the petitioner was in the year 1994 assigned charge of the Stock Investment Department of the Bank. Though the petitioner was on 07.06.1997 transferred from Asaf Ali Road Branch to the Chandni Chowk Branch but she was on 29.10.1997 placed under suspension and on 12.12.1997 charged with, while functioning as Assistant Manager, Asaf Ali Road during the period between 16.06.1992 and 07.06.1997 and while supervising the Stock Invest Department during the period between 01.08.1994 and 07.06.1997, having: W.P.(C) No.3481/1999 Page 2 of 10
"(1) Allowed Sri Praveen Kumar Gupta, a Clerk at Asaf Ali Road Branch to handle / attend clerical work relating to SI department when he was not allotted the work relating to the said department and / or when some other Clerk was allotted with the department.
(2) Allowed Sri Gupta to surreptitiously operate various SI Accounts standing in his name, in the name of his family members and friends and allowed the merger of certain SI accounts with certain other SI accounts against the rules of the Stock Invest Scheme.
(3) Allowed / facilitated Sri Gupta to commit various frauds in the SI A/Cs and caused financial loss to the Bank.
You by misusing your official position facilitated Sri Gupta to commit various frauds by resorting to manipulations, falsification of records etc., and caused derivation of undue pecuniary benefits by him / his family members / friends.
In the process you also committed / caused to be committed various other irregularities more fully described in the Statement of imputations of Misconduct appended below:
By your above acts, you failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity and honesty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of the status of the Bank Officer and thus contravened Regulation No.3(1) read with Regulation No.24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976."
W.P.(C) No.3481/1999 Page 3 of 10
5. An Inquiry Officer was appointed who submitted a report dated 28.08.1998, finding the petitioner grossly negligent in performing her responsibilities for a continuous period of three years and thereby facilitating perpetuation of fraud, giving rise to suspicion about her integrity and honesty in discharging her duties and exhibiting conduct unbecoming of her status as a Bank Officer. Each of the charges were found to be proved as the petitioner had failed to safeguard the interest of the Bank.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, the Disciplinary Authority of the Bank imposed punishment aforesaid of compulsory retirement and the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
7. The challenge by the petitioner in this writ petition, is on the ground:
(i) that her past record was not only good but outstanding and she had never been communicated any adverse remark;
(ii) that the officers of the Bank had been assigned number of responsibilities which can be discharged speedily and effectively only when the lower functionaries in the department are also efficient and effective - the final output of a particular department is by way of a collective and joint effort and is W.P.(C) No.3481/1999 Page 4 of 10 possible only when trust and belief is honoured and maintained amongst the officers and employees of the department;
(iii) that in the present case, the trust reposed by the petitioner on Mr. P.K. Gupta working as a Clerk in the department and posted there since prior to the joining of the petitioner, had been violated;
(iv) that the Stock Investment Department was introduced in the Bank for the first time in November, 1992 only and in 1994 when petitioner was given charge thereof, majority of the officers in the Bank including the petitioner had no experience about the Stock Investment System;
(v) that besides Stock Investment Department of which the petitioner had no earlier experience, the petitioner was also shouldering the responsibilities of the Deposit Department;
where she was required to deal with Vikas Cash Certificate including NRI Fixed Deposits, Social Security Deposits, Recurring Deposit, Suvidha Deposit etc. besides CBSE Examination Fee and miscellaneous deposits. She was also required to look after the work of Tax Deducted at Source; W.P.(C) No.3481/1999 Page 5 of 10
(vi) that Mr. P.K. Gupta was an expert in dealing with the complete work of the Stock Investment Department and the petitioner trusted him and which has proved fatal to her;
(vii) that no connivance between the petitioner and the said Mr. P.K. Gupta has been established;
(viii) that the petitioner has not gained anything in the matter;
(ix) that the petitioner though accepts her negligence to the extent of trusting Mr. P.K. Gupta, contends that for such negligence she cannot be punished with compulsory retirement;
(x) that no action has been taken against her predecessors and successors on the said post, though they were also negligent in checking the said Mr. P.K. Gupta;
(xi) that no action has been taken against other higher officers also;
(xii) that though Mr. P.K. Gupta earlier also in the year 1993 had been awarded the penalty of stoppage of next three increments with cumulative effect but he was allowed to again commit the fraud; and
(xiii) that though before the Inquiry Officer connivance of the petitioner with Mr. P.K. Gupta was disbelieved but while W.P.(C) No.3481/1999 Page 6 of 10 writing the report, a finding to the said effect had also been given.
8. Though the counsel for the respondent Bank states that a counter affidavit was filed but the same is neither on record nor any noting of the same having been filed is on record. Be that as it may, the petitioner having filed the entire record of the Disciplinary Proceedings, the same has been perused.
9. The aforesaid narration would show that the challenge is not on the ground of any defect in the Disciplinary Proceedings but only on the ground of proportionality. The question which arises is, whether in the face of the admission of the petitioner of negligence in checking her subordinate Mr. P.K. Gupta and on the plea of it being essential for an officer in the Bank to, in performance of his / her duties trust the subordinates, punishment meted out to the petitioner of compulsory retirement can be said to be disproportionate.
10. The Supreme Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 reiterated that the jurisdiction to interfere with the disciplinary matters of punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction and that it is appropriate to remember that the power to impose W.P.(C) No.3481/1999 Page 7 of 10 penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the Competent Authority and if there has been an inquiry consistent with the Rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Court does not have the power to substitute its own discretion for that of the Authority. It is only when the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the Court that this Court should mould the relief either directing the Authority to reconsider the penalty or in exceptional and rare cases itself impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. The same principles were reiterated recently in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584.
11. I am of the considered view that once the Bank, in distributing the duties had made the petitioner responsible for checking the functioning of her subordinates, the petitioner cannot on the plea of trust wriggle out of the said duty. If the Bank, while distributing the duties amongst its employees, was to trust the employee of the level at which Mr. P.K. Gupta was working, the post of the petitioner would have been redundant. However, the Bank deemed it fit not to stop the buck at the post which Mr. P.K. Gupta was W.P.(C) No.3481/1999 Page 8 of 10 occupying but with the petitioner and none of the grounds aforesaid on which the petitioner challenges the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority can come to the rescue of the petitioner. If the said arguments were to be accepted, it would virtually mean that none of the higher officers of the Bank who are not personally handling the transactions would be responsible and the entire hierarchy established by the Bank would collapse. The Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212 observed that every officer / employee of a Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and that good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer / employee of the Bank and that if this is not done the confidence of the public / depositors would be impaired. It was further held that if the charged employee holds a position of trust and deals with public money, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently and the misconduct has to be dealt with iron hands. It was yet further held that simply because the officer has rendered long years of service is no ground for showing sympathy or generosity. Mention may also be made of Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank Vs. P.C. W.P.(C) No.3481/1999 Page 9 of 10 Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 laying down that lesser punishment to a co- delinquent is not a ground for interference and reiterating that the punishment has to be shockingly disproportionate for the Court to interfere. I may in this regard notice that the extreme punishment of dismissal from service has not been meted out to the petitioner.
12. No merit is thus found in the grounds on which the punishment imposed on the petitioner is challenged and the petition is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J OCTOBER 19, 2012 'gsr' W.P.(C) No.3481/1999 Page 10 of 10