Sri P R Ravi Kumar S/O B V Raman vs The Management Of Syndicate Bank on 9 June, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri P R Ravi Kumar S/O B V Raman vs The Management Of Syndicate Bank on 9 June, 2011

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

3 W'? 2904/ 2006

respect of the counter foil relating to the eiepesit made by and

2315:} did not aeceunt the same in P.K.Abubakkar, the 

of the Bank, Consequeritly the Corresponding entry  ~

aeceunt of P.K.Ai:>ubakkar was neat reeor1d»edb_beir:_-gtttie::ij:ie}{3"t>f 

acceurit maintained in the usual eouiaee :33? ..i";;r1:Sir1esS' of :th.e"*i(_'

bank. During December 1991, thejsaid  VA

come ta know that RS500/~ was i1s:'it'~.{;fe:iVi'teCi"  aeeount,
made enquiries with the    (game to
light that petitioner  signec1 VV_ti:ieV.VV 'ﬁnd did not
account for the  accepted his
failure to acceiiiitvh   an 27~12~i991,
reimburseditiieVsatti.Vetrtit§iifit;T:Wtiieh  eredited to the account
of the said   it h

3. "4.;jI*tie3ieaft.erizt%:;ftifci'i3, ciiiiscipiinary aeticin was initiated by

is«sui'Arig_et <:h"2:u'geSh.eet, which when served on the petitioner,

Suijﬁiitteda§i:"'--«e§<:;Sia1§'ati0n admitting the non-<:re::iit ef the

a;i1ou:2t't.t__ueV_t'9' iiieavj; Warts: and having made goaci amount an

"  ':':,2?f 1.':Zj}iV§9:.,'g,§£1<3US€d no less to the Bank or the customer.

km

 T'i*efeAt:;3,:::;A--; an Eﬂqtiifjsf Gffieer was appointed and having heglai

€fi:T--;iiiiE"§i'.., eeinpiyiizg wit;ii the prineipiee sf Nature: justice



4 'WP 2904/2006

submitted a report dated 2.12.1992 holcimg the charge prgﬁged.

The disciplinary auth0:'it;y en receipt of the 

Enquiry OffiC€? €'Xi€I1d€d an oppertunity of pers0nai--'i1e.afi{ig'*  ~

2?~€}I«19Q3 and regard being had is 31$,I11E}"§€fiS:}Méﬁt'"$;¢§§I(gf€{  

evidence both era} and docunimntary Ei::Id::'tiT:é:' p«éi;:ti0fi'er'

of the Charge of misappropriatieri  Rs.2Zt3()'2/5 tsj 3

customer. a misconduct; pre}ud1cia1 h:;vbibs: :ntc5:*=:..~3T:"<>f the Bank

falling under clause: 19.5  '::_Vh€;V' Bip--21_:'Ei.ieV_SettI€n1er1t and
having lost Canfidemje in,  order dated
8.2.1993 dismiss%éci"'j;:§:1?;¢ };):L°,.f€i'L{i1.C}"rJ2;€I'.4'4'f§%§iiéj~~..Q§*Vice. An appeal

prefetrred by 't€i'1_Ve 'diSI'f;i§S€d by order dated

5.05. 1993 :V§f%£i:eT'A:35 pe1i;i£e  V

4. Petitioner Vé;gg:?ié'v'e€i.»L.by the dismissal from service

initiated'§:§=:§n<f:i1i3.'{i<§»12gﬁfoceésding under the Industrial Disputeg

   1--%x7:£";«£f:Vf1C€ the Central Government by order dated

14-A/"'3.§3f§*/1I§v§'§_. réf€:*;i'€d the dispute fer adjudicatian to the

VVV'CentraE'"««G0yje:';':§é5ié*nt Industrial Tribunal Bangalore ifcr shaft

"  where it was registersd. as CR N038/1997. Tbs

  :)E'd€}" daisé 25.L3§§9 F€j€C?;€d ihe re§<3rr::ns.f:€

' "§'«{3?§§_(§v§E;"§iE1§§ "s7€£'hiCh p€?;i:iQr:é:>r fiéeii §V£§sc:.E:3/ 1'E§§9 whisk was

'a



5 W'? 2904 /2906

aﬂewed by order dated 947-1999 and the reference restored to

file. Before the Tribunal, parties filed their 

pieadings, whence the petitierxer eenceded that the  '

enquiry was fair and preper. There:a;.f?;erw.ar'dS§:  V

represented by learned counsel addree'sed;'_'e;§;;§'ufner:*ied'o*ee25d"{lr{e~d_:

findings recorded by the diseipiir;%i:'y._fguddeﬁey' and
the Tribunal by award dated 21wO8~fé§Of}2: --rejee€ed.die reference.

Hence, this petition.

5. Pdthougljx .' pg/gieiener eantends
that the   p_€"dU0ner is a minor
H1ise0ndue_f..fe>r ef dismissal was not
xvarrantedlxj am  I say 30, because in the

admitted faetded d:11.V:5:ztii*;>_§,"4Ve1:3'ei;i?d{;Vr1e1* having received R3502/~ on

_1V3.9.1QS{&1' 'hem Sfi.R,dEfZV.AbL}:.ebak}:ary an aceeuné holder was met

v.7.:1ee'{3'dz1fv£'ed_':i.3e_d Credited to the Savings Bank Aeeount

:'e1e0fe.'e{§eunted fer in the beaks of the respondent

Vvdvbank, :2-me ..__dide.:f:0i record the receipt {:2}? the money in the W ":d:v".4ACaV§'h:e:;'e Se:'e1i on ihe said date. Thus the Bank was kept in "::e:;;:1__f:e:* foil, de::k..eKfer the receipt of {he a::1eu:1?;, as Wei} as iesue of ibe " V .__ ' ;::g;é é:i:%s:§s SC 32?:

6 'WP 2904/2006

6. If the petiiisner was honest, diligent ans disciplined in his a(:e:0umir:zg the money rscsivsd by him might accsunted {ctr Rs.502/~ in the beaks of the Bank. ~ sf Ehs peiitisnsr in pocketing tbs said amggnt byHhssi-.s¢;<s€iif.i4::g to {has accounts of the account hO1Ci€I'§ CuSfO1"}."£;3I""'£¥f;'*i1'ié cannot but 136 said to have Csrnrhittsd g1=a€?s r11isssc3A3f1cE.:;{:t fof misappropriation of the mQr1ey's entr;Q1'ss§:ci. go '{12'1.€.i' shaking the respondents confidence of the matter, it Carma: be said a minor misconduct calling of3:V:sff3vs§=%>unishment and 1101; dismissal ~ 'V . ' V '2'. ..Ap€:x Csuri in State Bank of India and ansths'rVvs.V"*E'§éis and other' relied upon by the Counsel for tf:e.__Vfsspsndent, in the circumsiances is éikpééﬁsﬁ 1 sfficer is requires is exercise highs? Vst.s'.ﬁg:is:rds sf honesty and integrity. He deals. msnsy sf {he dspssiisrs and {has susiiorriérs, Every sfficsr/employee sf the Bank §Vs--._Fsé§uifsﬁ 'as tsks 3.3 psssibie steps is praise:

9; *% 7 WP 2904»/;2006 the interests (if the Bank and to dischatge his duties with utmesst integriiy, henesty, deveiion and diligence and to do neihing which unbecoming of a Bank effieer. Goad Conduct diseipﬁne are inseparable from the...funct§*eﬁ§h'ge_':'. "

of every efficer,/employee of the ' ebserved by this Court in v.D'isseipiins1fy"'v "

Auth0rit};--eum~RegionaI Man_eiger Vt"

Bihari Patnaik (1996) (91 seFe.,,:es)§, it"is. n0 defence avaﬁable to saﬂf'that he less profit resulted in' VA the officer/employee. acted"'withniit._."23:qt1;i'o:§i;V';' The very ciiseipE_:irief;,xef . " mere particularlie is "de-per;dﬁeﬁi'--:b'upsn each of its Qffjeers «:_; Q£f_:eejr s._:Vaetip,.g ﬁnd operating xwithirli the}? "::15ge_e3ee sisfieife. .A{:t;Zn beyond 0ne's authority of discipline and is

3. misC011eiuei.vvTEie__Chgifges againsi the employee were ':10: ease--ail in namre and were serious. Se, thev"§}Aea about absence sf less is also sense s'13?;s:ance."

8, En"-- the circumstances, ':he writ petitien is

4. .V Vu:ime1A'i1:€2._ri0::s as the findings 0f the Tribunal in the award :;::;";u'g:1e{i'Aare get shevm {.9 suffer fmm eserversiiy and henee, T ée" :*:§;1'i C31} {ea iF£i€I'f€1'€Zf1C€ in exereise sf e:e::re.e:rcji{:e,:'y writ E e WP 2904;,/ :;»c;o6 jurisdi<:':i<m und€r Sectier: 227' of the the resuIf;_ xwii petiiian is dismissed. Rule discharged.

JL (:ons:1{uue:i"'-ouf i2j_ti:é.. In

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court