HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61168 of 2014 Petitioner :- Shyam Bihari Agrawal Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Sanjiv Singh Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for Union of India.
Petitioner, before this Court was appointed as Senior Branch Manager, Vrindavan Branch, Syndicate Bank, Mathura in the year 2007. In respect of his working at Vrindavan Branch between 21st May, 2007 to 8th November, 2008, he was found to be involved in various misconducts. Accordingly, he was served with a charge memo dated 24th July, 2009, which contained as many as 10 charges.
First three charges were in respect of the complaints of residents of village Nagla Chamaran. It was alleged that the petitioner had colluded with the tractor dealer, Krishna Murari alias Kaniah and with the help of Bank's Field Officer, he had cheated them. A first information report in respect of such transactions was also lodged. The details of the borrowers and amount sanctioned under different schemes, Synd Jaikisan Scheme, Tractor Loans, and other secured loans, were specifically stated in the charge memo.
Under the fourth charge, it was alleged that after office hours on 17th April, 2008 the petitioner accepted huge credit of Rs. 12 lacs from Krishna Murari alias Kanhia, who was not a customer of the Branch, for credit of his current account maintained at Maholi Road Branch, Mathura. The transaction was split into three credit slips for facilitating the purchase of Demand Drafts at Kosikalan Branch, which was at a distance of 40 kilometers from Vrindavan.
Under the fifth charge, it was alleged that the loan documents, in respect of Synd SMCR loans, were kept blank.
Sixth charge was in respect of documents of Saral Loan accounts were kept blank.
Under the 7th Charge, it was alleged that the petitioner had allowed debit balance in current account of M/s Dwarvati Associates and also discounted a cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/- to the party exceeding his sanctioning powers.
Under the 8th Charge, it was alleged that the petitioner was relieved from Moradabad Branch on 4th July, 2006 on transfer to Aligarh Branch. He was sanctioned quarters facility at Aligarh Branch w.e.f. 26th September, 2006. During intervening period, he was entitled to House Rent Allowance only, but he illegally claimed reimbursement of quarter rent.
The 9th Charge was in respect of submission of Travelling Allowance Bill dated 24th July, 2007 for a sum of Rs. 10,500/- supported by a lorry receipt dated 17th July, 2007 for Rs. 3500/- issued by Ms. Premier Transport of India. The travelling allowance bill was sanctioned for Rs. 8151/- by Regional Office. On enquiry it was revealed that transport operator was not in existence and therefore, the lorry receipt submitted by the petitioner was a forged document.
Lastly the 10th Charge was that petitioner has claimed annual medical aid reimbursement of Rs. 3750/- for the year 2007, twice for the first time on 8th January, 2007 and for the second time on 24th April, 2008.
Details of the irregularities committed by the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid charges were also detailed in the charge memo. The documents and the management witnesses sought to be relied upon in support of the charges were also specifically disclosed in the charge memo.
Departmental enquiry was conducted. At the end of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer did require from the petitioner to disclose as to whether he wanted to add anything or not, to which the petitioner submitted that he had been working for so many years. He had achieved the targets and was always trying to ensure growth of the Branch. Petitioner also filed his written brief of defence to the enquiry into the charges before the Enquiry Officer (reference page 142 of the present paper book). The Enquiry Officer on 9th October, 2010 submitted his report after considering the evidence brought on record as well as written submissions and found that the charges against the petitioner had been established beyond reasonable doubt.
The disciplinary authority on receipt of the enquiry report vide letter dated 18th October, 2010 forwarded the same to the petitioner so as to afford an opportunity to have his say in respect of the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. Petitioner submitted his written submissions on 22nd November, 2010.
The disciplinary authority vide order dated 13th January, 2011 (Annexure-13 to the present writ petition) after considering the enquiry report, entire evidence as collected during the enquiry proceedings as well as the written submissions of the petitioner, came to a conclusion that the charges as levelled against the petitioner were proved. It was recorded that the petitioner displayed absolute lack of integrity and such employees had no right to continue in the Bank. The Bank has lost trust in him. In exercise of powers under Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations, 1976"), the petitioner was punished with dismissal from service with immediate effect.
Not being satisfied with the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager of the Bank under Regulation 17 of the Regulations, 1976. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 21st February, 2011 (Annexure-16 to the present writ petition). The appellate authority found no illegality in the decision of the disciplinary authority. It has been recorded that the punishment awarded was commensurated with the gravity of the charges found proved.
The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision application before the Executive Director/Reviewing Authority. The review application has also been dismissed vide order dated 26th September, 2014 (Annexure-14 to the present writ petition).
Against the order of the disciplinary authority dated 13th January, 2011, the order of the appellate authority dated 21st February, 2012 and the order of the reviewing authority dated 26th September, 2014, the present writ petition has been filed.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this Court as follows:
(a) At no point of time, during departmental proceedings documents relied upon by the employers were admitted nor they were provded by any witnesses of management.
(b) Sole evidence of B. Ramesh Bhatt, as management witness no. VIII was examined. B. Ramesh Bhatt. had no personal knowledge of any of the documents. He had only conducted the vigilance inspection.
(c) Petitioner had filed several documents and that his oral testimony was not recorded during the enquiry proceedings.
It is, therefore, submitted that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated.
It is contended that during relevant period, one D.P. Sharma was the in-charge of Advance. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against D.P. Sharma but he had only been punished by an order of withholding of 5 increments for 2 years, while similarly situate petitioner has been punished with dismissal from service, therefore, the orders of the respondent-Bank are discriminatory.
It is lastly submitted that there has been violation of Regulation 6 (17) of the Regulations, 1976, which requires the enquiry officer to generally question the employee on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purposes of enabling the officers employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Moni Shankar vs. Union of India & Another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 484.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank disputes the correctness of the contentions so raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the findings returned by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority are essentially findings of fact. They are based on appreciation of evidence on record. The Writ Court is concerned with the procedure which had been adopted in the matter of departmental proceedings rather than actual order made.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition.
We may first deal with the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the violation of Regulation 6 (17) of the Regulations, 1976.
From the records of the proceedings including the written brief filed by the petitioner (Annexure No. 9 to the present writ petition), it is apparently clear that he made no compliant whatsoever in respect of the procedure, which had been followed in the departmental enquiry.
Similarly from the enquiry report, it is apparent that in accordance with Regulation 6 (10) of the Regulations, 1976, the presenting officer had made arrangements for verification of original documents by the charged employee, namely, the petitioner. Petitioner had verified the same and had satisfied himself about the documents. Regular hearing in the departmental proceedings did take place on 22nd February, 2010, 8th March to 16th March, 2010 at LDM Office, Mathura and from 10th April, 2010 to 17th April, 2010 at RO, Delhi. The petitioner vide letter dated 14th November, 2010 had required production of certain documents stated therein for the purposes of his defence. These documents were made available to the charged officer. 8 witnesses (MW-1 to MW-8) were examined on behalf of the management along with 337 documents (MEX-1 to MEX-337 marked in red ink) to sustain the charges against the charged officer. The charged officer did not deem it fit and proper to get himself examined, but certain documents (DEX-1 to DEX-39, DEX-101 to DEX-107) were produced in support of his defence. The defence has also produced certain documents as noticed in the enquiry report.
The enquiry officer has specifically recorded in his report at page 159 of the paper book as follows:
"Since, CSOE did not examine himself as a witness, I had put him the general questions as provided under Regulation 6 (17) of SBOE (D & A) Regulations, 1976. On completion of the inquiry, both the parties were advised to submit their written briefs if any, within 15 days. I had received the written brief dated 26.04.2010 from PO on 26.04.2010. Pursuant to CSOE's request vide letter dated 29.04.2010 I had vide my letter dated 03.05.2010 sent a copy of PO's brief to him and thereafter I had received written brief from CSOE on 07.07.2010. I have perused the written briefs in detail."
It is, therefore, clear that requirements of Regulation 6 (17) of the Regulations, 1976 were satisfied in the facts of the case and the enquiry officer had put in general questions as provided under the said Regulation to the charged officer.
The plea to the contrary raised by Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner is false and appears to be based on non-consideration of the said part of the enquiry report. It is also clear form the enquiry report that Ved Ram (MW-1), Harbulal (MW-2), Mahabir Singh (MW-3), Hargulal (MW-4), Om Prakash (MW-5), Ratiram (MW-6), Pannalal (MW-7), B. Ramesh Bhat, Chief Manager, Mount Road Branch Chennai (MW-8) were examined as Management Witnesses and defence cross-examined them during departmental enquiry. It is, therefore, clear that not only the documents were permitted to be verified by the petitioner qua which he recorded his satisfaction, he also cross-examined the management witnesses.
The enquiry officer, after considering the entire evidence brought on record found that charges as levelled against the petitioner was proved.
The disciplinary authority forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner with an opportunity to have his say in the matter to which petitioner responded by filing his objection. The enquiry report, objection of the petitioner and the attending material and evidence on record were considered by the disciplinary authority. A conscious decision has been taken that the charges as levelled against the petitioner were proved beyond reasonable doubt. He was unworthy to be retained in service. The Bank was lost trust on him. He was punished with dismissal from service strictly in accordance with the Regulations applicable. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal from service was also dismissed and the review application has been rejected referred to above.
In view of what has been noticed above, we specifically enquired from the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to point out from the memo of appeal/memo of review application, as to whether the petitioner had raised any grievance in the matter of any procedure prescribed by the regulations having been violated by the enquiry officer. The answer given to us is in negative. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner conceded that there is no complaint in the memo of appeal or in the memo of review application with regard to the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer. The plea with regard to the violation of Regulation 6 (17) of the Regulations, 1976, as already noticed above, is misconceived, based on non-consideration of the enquiry report.
We may record that the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the order of the appellate authority and the reviewing authority on grounds, which were not raised/pressed before the said authorities.
This takes the Court to the last contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that there has been discrimination in the matter of imposition of penalty, vis-a-vis the petitioner and D.P. Sharma.
Suffice is to record that D.P. Sharma was not faced with identical charges, as those contained in Charge Nos. 7 to 10 of the charge memo served upon the petitioner. These charges, which have also been found proved reflect drawing of illegal monetary benefits by the petitioner, wholly unbecoming of an officer of the Bank.
Therefore, the plea that there should have been joint trial or that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner should have been the same as inflicted against D.P. Sharma does not stand the test of scrutiny. The charge nos. 8 to 10 have aggravated the misdeeds of the petitioner and therefore, the punishment, which has been inflicted upon the petitioner, in the totality of the circumstances on record, is commensurate with the charges found proved.
The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Moni Shankar (Supra) is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the case.
For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 31.7.2015
Sushil/-
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61168 of 2014
Petitioner :- Shyam Bihari Agrawal
Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Sanjiv Singh
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Dismissed.
For orders, see order of date passed on the separate sheets.
(Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 31.7.2015
Sushil/-