Telangana High Court
Sarat Babu, Hyderabad vs The General Manager Hr, Hyderabad on 1 February, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.26169 of 2011
ORDER:
Petitioner in this writ petition has questioned the order, dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service and the order, dated 08.04.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the earlier order of dismissal and sought for consequential direction to the respondents to pay arrears of salary.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Petitioner has joined the service of Respondent-Bank and his services were regularized in Grade-III with effect from 14.11.1981. While so, a charge sheet was issued to him on 29.06.2010 alleging that on 12.06.2009, he had entered and posted for payment, a cheque for Rs.5,40,00,000-00 received in clearing, despite several discrepancies in the instrument, by colluding with outsiders in perpetration of a fraud to the said amount. It is stated that at relevant point of time, the petitioner had worked as a Deputy Manager in the Cheque Processing Centre at Hyderabad. He sought for time for submitting the explanation on the charge levelled against him, however, without waiting for his explanation, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. He participated in the inquiry on 18.09.2010 and pleaded not guilty and requested for defence Assistant. It is 2 JS, J W.P.No.26169 of 2011 contended that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the department as MW-1 and MW-2, who were not concerned with his work at Cheque Processing Centre. It is the case of petitioner that the process of passing of cheque is that, first of all, the cheque will go to the Service Centre from where it will be sent to the Cheque Processing Centre along with the floppy received from the clearing house. The duty of the Officer Incharge of Cheque Processing Centre is to upload the floppy containing the total data relating to the cheques. It is stated that the subject cheque bearing No.760585, dated 09.06.2009 favouring M/s. Vishal Computer Peripherals & Solutions issued by the A.P. State Finance Corporation and presented through ICICI Bank, was sent to the Assistant Manager to verify the signature on the cheque and the particulars entered by the clerk concerned with regard to payees name, date of instrument and the balance position in the payees account. According to petitioner, his duty was to upload the floppy received from the clearing house and to allot the branch wise cheques to the staff. In the affidavit, the petitioner has summarized his duties as under.
i. To upload floppy
ii. To distribute all cheques
iii. SOLID closing
3 JS, J
W.P.No.26169 of 2011
4. Thus, it is his contention that he followed the guidelines and discharged his duties diligently as per the regulations by taking abundant care and caution, and inspite of the same, the Disciplinary Authority has awarded major penalty of dismissing him from service. The Appellate Authority also failed to consider the grounds raised by him and mechanically dismissed the appeal without taking into consideration the fact whether the Deputy Manager is obligated to verify the cheque or not and verification of the said instrument is beyond the duties that are entrusted to him. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned orders of punishment.
5. Respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner had joined the service of the erstwhile Andhra Bank initially in clerical cadre and thereafter as G-I Officer with effect from 14.11.1981 and subsequently promoted as Deputy Manager i.e. as Middle Manager Grade Scale-II cadre. It is stated that while the petitioner was working as Deputy Manager in Cheque Processing Centre of the Bank at Hyderabad, he was alleged to have perpetrated a fraud on the Bank for a huge amount of Rs.5,40,00,000-00. It is stated that on 12.06.2009, ICICI Bank Limited, Service Centre, Hyderabad, presented in clearing, a cheque No.760585, dated 09.06.2009 for the aforesaid amount favouring M/s. Vishal Computers Peripheral & S. Solutions purportedly issued by M/s. A.P. 4 JS, J W.P.No.26169 of 2011 State Financial Corporation. The transaction for processing the said cheque was entered and posted at the Cheque Processing Centre, Service Centre, Hyderabad, by the petitioner herein despite various discrepancies, narrated as under.
a. Colour of the instrument was different when compared with other Cheques.
b. Printing is not sharp.
c. Size of MICR Bandwidth is different.
d. Width of white band at the top of the Cheque differs. e. Alignment of Bank Logo differs in comparison to other Cheques of the account hold.
f. Colour of Bank Logo defers.
g. Signatures of the drawers as the instrument appear to be scanned.
6. The above fact has come to light when a phone call was received from the ICICI Bank enquiring as to the genuineness of the above cheque. On that, the respondent has enquired with the A.P. State Finance Corporation with regard to issuance of cheque, upon which, it was informed to them that the above numbered cheque was issued for Rs.2,384-00 on 15.06.2009 in favour of one M.Ramesh and that the said cheque was not even delivered to him. Therefore, they lodged a complaint with the Police on 17.06.2009 which was registered as Crime No.151 of 2009 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC by the Central Crime Station, D.D., Hyderabad. During 5 JS, J W.P.No.26169 of 2011 the course of investigation, the Police arrested the petitioner and his son and seized an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs from the petitioner and Rs.188.50 lakhs from his son. Police have also seized some more amounts from four other persons and in total, they seized an amount of Rs.3,29,50,000-00. It is the case of respondent that the petitioner, in collusion with outsiders, has perpetrated the fraud on the Bank by entering and posting the aforesaid fake/fabricated cheque favouring M/s. Vishal Computer Peripherals Solutions.
7. With regard to the inquiry conducted, it is stated that a charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 29.06.2010 asking him to submit his statement of defence within ten days. Since the petitioner did not submit his statement of defence within the stipulated time, an inquiry was ordered by appointing an Inquiry Officer. The inquiry was adjourned on various dates due to non-attendance of the petitioner and ultimately, the petitioner had attended the same on 18.09.2019 and pleaded not guilty of the charges. Accordingly, the inquiry was concluded on 05.10.2010. It is stated that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the department as MWs.1 and 2 and the petitioner had also cross-examined them. The documents marked in the inquiry proceedings as exhibits MEX1 to MEX5 have also been furnished to the petitioner and he was also provided with the opportunity of verifying the documents with originals with regard to 6 JS, J W.P.No.26169 of 2011 duties of petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the cheque in question was entered and passed by the petitioner on 02.06.2009 as per a pre-plan and in collusion with the outsiders who have perpetrated fraud on the Bank. It is denied that a false case was foisted against the petitioner and stated that there is no need for the Bank to foist a false case against its own employee without there being any fraud. The penalty of dismissal from service is imposed on the petitioner after taking into consideration all relevant factors such as seriousness of the charge, material available on record and also the submissions of petitioner from time to time and the appellate authority also considered the appeal on merits and dismissed the same. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as there are no merits to interfere with the impugned orders.
8. The charge against the petitioner is that on 12.06.2009, the Service Centre of ICICI Bank, Hyderabad has presented a cheque bearing No.760585, dated 09.06.2009 for Rs.5,40,00,000-00 favouring M/s. Vishal Computers Peripheral & S. Solutions issued by M/s. A.P. State Financial Corporation and the petitioner, who was working as a Deputy Manager in the Cheque Processing Centre, has entered and posted the aforesaid cheque for payment despite glaring discrepancies, namely, the colour of the instrument was different, etc. as extracted above. On receiving a phone call from the ICICI 7 JS, J W.P.No.26169 of 2011 Bank with regard to the genuineness of the above cheque, they enquired with the A.P. State Financial Corporation with regard to the same, upon which, they came to know that cheque bearing No.760585 was issued for Rs.2,384-00 on 15.06.2009 in favour of one Mr.M.Ramesh and that the said cheque was not even delivered to him. Thus, it came to light that the petitioner, in collusion with some outsiders, has played fraud on the Bank by preparing a fraud cheque. It has come on record that pursuant to the criminal complaint lodged by the Respondent-Bank, the Police have investigated into the matter and seized a total sum of Rs.3,29,50,000-00 from the petitioner, his son, Assistant Manager of ICICI Bank and three outsiders. The defence taken by the petitioner is that he was fraudulently made responsible for the charge, as being a Deputy Manager, he was authorized to clear the cheques valued up to Rs.10 Lakhs only and since the present cheque was for Rs.5,40,00,000-00, he cannot be made responsible for the same. The other defence is that he was acquitted from the criminal case by a competent Court and the appeal preferred against such acquittal has also ended in dismissal, and thus, contend that he is not liable for the charge levelled.
9. With regard to the above defence taken by the petitioner, it is to be seen that during the course of inquiry, petitioner had 8 JS, J W.P.No.26169 of 2011 participated in the proceedings by engaging a defence assistant to defend his case. He has also cross-examined the two witnesses who were examined in support of the Bank and he was also afforded with the opportunity of examining the five documents marked by the Bank in the inquiry. After considering the entire evidence, the Inquiry Officer has observed that the petitioner had acted hand-in-glove with outsiders and cheated the Bank. The recovery of an amount of Rs.203 Lakhs from the petitioner and his son apart from some more amount from four other persons also established the involvement of petitioner in the matter. Having participated in the inquiry and having cross-examined the witnesses and also having examined the documents marked during the course of inquiry, the petitioner cannot contend that the inquiry was not properly conducted. Further, it is settled law that acquittal in a criminal case has no bearing on the departmental proceedings.
10. Counsel for petitioner has referred to the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in W.P.No.21578 of 2013, dated 14.09.2023, wherein, the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner therein was set aside in view of the clear acquittal of petitioner therein in the criminal case. This judgment is not applicable to the case of the petitioner because he was acquitted in the criminal case on the 9 JS, J W.P.No.26169 of 2011 ground that there was no chance for the petitioner to scan the signatures of the officials of A.P. State Financial Corporation. It is to be seen that the charge against the petitioner is that he, in collusion with some others, had altogether fabricated a cheque and posted for payment. The glaring discrepancies extracted above demonstrate that the cheque was a fabricated one. Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on the verdict of the Criminal Court when the charge against him has been established in the inquiry proceedings.
11. Counsel for respondent, in support of his case, has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Constable Sunil Kumar 1, wherein, when a Division Bench of High Court has set aside the order of dismissal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the said judgment by allowing the appeal filed by the department holding that the punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. The respondent has also relied on another judgment of Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy 2, wherein, it is held that in a disciplinary proceedings, the question of burden of proof would depend upon the nature of the charge. Further, in the case of State Bank of India and Others v. P.Zadenga 3 relied on by the counsel for respondent, it is held that the acquittal by a Criminal Court would 1 (2023) 3 Supreme Court Cases 622 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1064 3 2023 SCC Online SC 1240 10 JS, J W.P.No.26169 of 2011 not debar an employer from exercising the power of conducting departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations and the two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different and operate in different fields and have different objectives.
12. All the aforesaid judgments relied on by the counsel for respondent support their case. In this case, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings and he has also participated in the inquiry, cross-examined the witnesses of the department, he was provided with all the documents marked by the department during the inquiry proceedings and only after considering the defence of the petitioner, the charge against the petitioner was held proved. Though the petitioner contends that he was not having power to deal with cheques valued more than Rs.10 Lakhs as a Deputy Manager, it has come on record and proved beyond doubt that he dealt with the cheque in question and posted it for payment, as has been proved through the documents produced before the Inquiry Officer. If the petitioner was not having power to deal with subject cheque as has been contended by him, he ought to have declined to deal with it, but instead of doing so, he posted it for payment, and hence, the said defence cannot be accepted. Since the allegation against the petitioner has been established in the inquiry 11 JS, J W.P.No.26169 of 2011 proceedings, the order of dismissal has been passed and this Court is of the considered view that the punishment of dismissal from service is also proportionate to the gravity of the charge proved. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:01.02.2024 Ksk