Brij Bhushan Shukla vs G.M. Operation-I
2011 Latest Caselaw 4798 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Judgment reserved on 24.05.2011
 
Judgment delivered on 23.09.2011
 

 
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15782 of 2004
 
Braj Bhushan Shukla Vs.  
 
The General Manager (Operation-I) & Anr.
 

 
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Hon. K.N. Pandey, J.

1. We have heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Misra appears for the respondents-bank.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the United Commercial Bank, a Nationalized and Scheduled Bank in the year 1973 and was posted in Rohtak Branch of the Bank in the State of Haryana. He was promoted as Scale-I Officer through departmental examination in 1980, and Middle Management Scale-II officer in the year 1997; transferred from Allahabad to Varanasi in the year 2000 and was posted as System Administrator in the Regional Office, Varanasi.

3. On 20.12.1999 a statement of imputation or lapses was prepared and served upon the petitioner alleging that on 16.12.1999, in the morning the petitioner serving as System Administrator at Civil Lines Branch Allahabad informed that the computer had gone out of order, and that the prints were not available on Computer terminal, on which work was carried out manually. Since the balances of Savings Bank and Current Accounts did not tally, the Senior Manager decided to make routine payments to VIP customers. At around 12.00 noon, on 16th December, 1999, Mr. Shukla again informed that he was carrying out mock Y2K (year 2000) trial exercise. Around 01.00 p.m. on 16th December, 1999, he informed that the computer is in order; and thus the petitioner disrupted the functioning of the computer. He did not give correct information on account of which customer-service was affected. In the second paragraph of the statement of imputation and lapses, it was alleged that the petitioner was given two cheques both dated 15.12.1999, for Rs.5,01,000/- and Rs.39,875.49 respectively by some VIP customers for issuance of demand drafts. The cheques were entered in their respective accounts maintained on the computer and were checked by the Supervisor. Due to some reasons, these cheques were not accepted by the computer, on which the casting of balance in the respective account was not done. The petitioner assured that he will get the things corrected in the evening. On the next morning the prints of the supplementary was taken out, from which it was observed by the Supervisor that the entries of these cheques were deleted. These lapses agitated the clerks and the sub-staff showing that the petitioner had deliberately deleted the two entries despite his assurance to get the things corrected. After heated discussions, the petitioner agreed to feed the transactions on 16th December, 1999. The petitioner was thus accountable for creating hindrance in smooth functioning of the branch, and in disrupting the customer services.

4. It was further alleged in para 3 that the petitioner had written a letter on 16.12.1999 to the Zonal Manager directly on bank's pad for which he was not authorized. In para 4 of the allegations it was stated that the Chief Cashier of Civil Lines, Allahabad Branch had reported that the petitioner, very often creates obstacles in the smooth functioning of the branch by playing tricks with the computers. In the last paragraph of the imputation it was alleged that the petitioner did not open the computer terminal in time and closed the same very late. He did not provide the prints of the day's transactions for checking to the respective Supervisors and officers.

The allegations were reduced to charges as follows:-

"1. He does not take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank which is violative of Regulation-3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.

	2. He does not discharge   his  duties with utmost devotion and diligence which is violative     of Regulation-3  of  Uco Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976   as amended."
 
 
 
5.	The petitioner submitted his reply on 30.12.1999.  He submitted  that the letter has been issued  to cover up the  shortcomings and mischief of Shri U.N. Misra, who is not fair     in transactions.  The petitioner demanded photocopies of the complaints and stated that   all VIP customers  on 16.12.1999 were obliged and the payment   was made to them even  in the absence   of the  computer entries.  The petitioner demanded the copies of the three cheques  and the transfer scroll maintained by the branch on 15.12.1999 and 16.12.1999,  and also requested for the copies of the letter  issued by the Deputy G.M. C.P.P.D. ordering  the System Administrator,   to write directly in case of any difficulty  in computerization of the branch.
 
6.	The Zonal Manager allowed the petitioner   inspection of all the documents and cheques and thereafter   the departmental enquiry   proceeded   against the petitioner.
 
7.	In the enquiry report dated 29.9.2003  after narrating the details of the enquiry in which documents   were allowed to be inspected and dates were fixed, the enquiry officer found that the petitioner did not   attend the enquiry  inspite of information    given  to him on 27.9.2003.  On the earlier dates on 25.9.2003  the presenting officer was unable   to attend   the  proceedings.  The petitioner did not submit any explanation  for his absence nor any witnesses were presented by him  on 27.9.2003, in the  Allahabad Branch.
 

8. On the first charge the enquiry officer found in respect of the allegations, that on 16.12.1999 the petitioner had informed that the computer was out of order and had made available the prints to manage the work. Around 12.00 noon the petitioner informed that he was carrying out Y2K exercises and thereafter informed at 1.00 p.m., that the computer is in order and was working. Once he had stated that computer was out of order, on which manual work was started, his report in the afternoon that the computer is working amounts to giving incorrect information to the Senior Manager, disrupting the functioning of the branch.

9. On allegations no.2 the enquiry officer found from the vouchers that the cheques given by M/s Kapoor Sons and M/s Agrawal Automobiles confirmed the transactions on 15.12.1999. Their accounts were debited in the supplementary on 15.12.1999. The petitioner did not take the errors seriously, on account of which the staff did not feel secure while dealing with computer. The explanation given by the petitioner on the steps taken by him, did not show that he tried to contact the software vendor in this regard, and assured the staff that the error will be corrected in the evening. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner as System Administrator did not understand the gravity of the error, and dealt with the situation negligently creating hindrance in smooth functioning of the Branch.

10. The allegation no.3, to the effect that he had written a letter to the Zonal Manager on the bank's pad the charge was not proved as the presenting officer could not produce the letter either in original or its photocopy.

11.	The  allegations no.4, that the petitioner was playing tricks with the computer adversely affecting the computer services in the Bank was found partly proved   on the ground that the   complainant's statement could not be   obtained  nor the Chief Cashier     Mr. S.N. Misra  could be produced    as witness.  
 
12.	On the last  allegation  that the petitioner did not open the computer terminal  in time and closed the terminal early, which did not allow the  prints of the day's transactions to be checked by the Supervisor in the evening was found proved on the basis   of the supplementary/ transactions, which was entered later.  However, no proof could be presented  that he did not   open the terminals   early in the morning.  The enquiry officer thus only found allegation nos.1 and 2    to be proved against   the petitioner.
 
13.	In his reply dated 13.11.2003,   to the enquiry report,   the petitioner requested to extend   the time limit to give his reply as his defence representative at Allahabad   is 400 kms. Away  from Gorakhpur  and no leave was provided to him.  He requested  for extending   the time   upto 17.10.2003.  The comments were submitted   on 12.10.2003 alleging that the enquiry officer had adopted the role of presenting officer.  He could not prosecute the   petitioner  as enquiry officer.  He was not allowed   to lead the witnesses on 25.9.2003, when he had  reached  the venue of the departmental enquiry along with witnesses.  He was at Allahabad Main Branch on 25.9.2003 upto 5.00 p.m. but was not  informed     that the enquiry proceedings   have been adjourned to 27.9.2003.  The allegations that  his daughter and son have been informed were incorrect, as the telephone number   on which   the alleged   information  was given  was not provided by him.   He had never given his residential telephone number of Allahabad, to the office.   When the enquiry officer  was aware that the petitioner is living in  the hotel in which the witnesses banks prosecutions were also  staying, he   could have been informed   of the next date fixed instead of   telephoning his son.  
 
14.	On the merits  of the findings  the petitioner   replied that  about 300 branches of UCO Bank are fully computerized, out of which 100 branches were supplied  software   by TCS of Allahabad. There are four Senior Managers  in  MMGS-III, who are working in the branches  with TCS Software and  several auditors  of EDP Cell.    Out of 16 Regional Inspectors, only four Inspectors were well versed  in the computer.  A layman  ignorant  of computers   was appointed as enquiry officer.    The petitioner submitted that Shri R.P. Maheshwari  and Shri S.K. Nagar was appointed as  Enquiry  and Presenting Officer  as they were  of the same caste, that of the Disciplinary Authority.  The entire enquiry proceedings   were  vitiated.  It  was also proved   that  the petitioner was not allowed to lead his evidence, as he was not   intimated  with the date of enquiry.
 
15.	On Y2K problem   the  petitioner stated that the computers around the world   were to be affected, when the date changed   from 1999 to 2000.  The problem had arisen    because  of the computer programmes, which was using  two digits rather than four digits to define the year.  The computer softwares recognized  the date using ''oo' as the year 1900 rather than 2000.    The system and programme  could not correctly compute the   date beyond 1999.   These possible outcomes were  referred to as Y2K (year 2000) problem. In view of the Y2K problem   the performance and functionality  of all computers using dates as parameters of banking transactions were  affected.    All the offices/ branches were to be made   Y2K compliant by replacement, repairment and upgradation. By the circular issued  to all the offices/ branches on 16.12.1999,  Y2K patches   were to be loaded in  the main server and all the remaining terminals   by CMC engineers.  Shri U.N. Mishra, the only management witness  had confirmed  that Y2K patch  loading   report  exhibited to him as DE-1A, B & C on the page no.15 of the  enquiry proceeding, was genuine.   He also admitted that installation work of Y2K patches started on 14.12.1999 and continued  upto  late evening   on 15.12.1999.  The  Y2K patch loading report  of the concerned branch was signed  by Shri U.N. Mishra  as Senior Branch Manager.  Since Y2K patches  could not be loaded upto 15.12.1999, the loading continued  on 16.12.1999 upto 12.00 noon  and in the circumstances   the petitioner had informed that the computer was not in order in the morning and had become functional at 12.00 noon.  This fact was  treated   by the enquiry officer   as disruption of the business of the bank by the petitioner. 
 
16.	The petitioner, thereafter, stated in  his reply in paras 8 and 9 (page 37) that Y2K problem was not only  haunted  the bank,  it was going to affect  the entire  banking industry, the Reserve Bank of India, the Ministry of Finance and the entire financial world   in the end of the year 1999.  A number of articles were published, and all the  newspapers   around  the world  had published    the reports.  Every branch   was required to give certificate  to Head Office by 7th December, 1999  that it was Y2K  free, and all the  safeguards/ precautions  have been taken. A similar certificate   was to be given  to RBI and Ministry of Finance and IBA.   In view of the circular dated 4.12.1999   and 6.12.1999  the patches   were to be installed  and validation/  Dry Run/ Mock Trial   and drill  contingency   was to be  carried out   to ensure  successful   services to the customers.  In the meeting of all the System Administrators  held at at Lucknow  on 7.12.1999,  in which   Shri Mishra   was also invited, Y2K  compliance report   was to be  given  by him.  
 
17.	On allegation no.2 the petitioner stated in his reply   that the  copy   of the preliminary investigation report was not provided to him.   Out of 40 members in Allahabad Main Branch no one  had   come forward to narrate  the alleged incident   dated 15.12.1999  and 16.12.1999.   Not a single voucher   of transfer  could be posted  until and unless   contra vouchers   were of the same amount.  A  single voucher   does not form batch, and that a single voucher   cannot be posted    in computer without contra debit and or credit   vouchers.   Both the alleged cheques   were not posted  in computer.  There was no mention of any batch  number  on the respect draft  vouchers  of the  alleged customer   Shri  U.N. Mishra was aware that vouchers once posted  and passed in the computer could not disappear.  If the vouchers and entries  disappeared, it  was the fault of the software vendor  and not the   System Administrator. The System Administrator can deal with the entries, which are appearing on the screen.  He cannot  deal with  the  entry, which had disappeared   as alleged by Shri U.N. Mishra.  If it was found that two cheques had disappeared, they were   expected to repost the cheque   on the computer again.  The petitioner was not told   and was aware that they   were posted again.  The petitioner had informed that the  computers are machines.  They are neither human  beings  nor they behave  like human beings.  He further stated that  computers do not make any mistakes.  The mistakes are committed by persons, who operate them and  enter data into it.   The computers are  not  allergic to any  person  or any VIP. They have no sentiments.    The computers cannot refuse  to accept the cheques   of any  customers like human being.  They only take commands, if they are given properly.  There is no reason that the computer should not accept  the commands for debiting   a particular amount.    The computer do not refuse to accept the cheques of the customers.  The enquiry officer has, like a layman  wrongly concluded that both the cheques of VIP customers were not accepted by the computer.  
 
18.	The petitioner further stated that hundreds of cheques are posted in ledgers and computers daily.  It is not the practice of the bank to verify whether   a particular cheque has been  appearing  or not.    If the CTO or Supervisor   saw these two cheques  allegedly disappear from the computer, they could appear and verify  the statement  as witnesses.  They were not produced as witnesses instead  only Shri U.N. Mishra was produced.  Shri V.K. Srivastava  and Shri K.S. Srivastava   being the natural witnesses could   have confirmed   about alleged   disappearance of the cheques.
 
19.	The petitioner further stated in his long reply that, whereas Shri Hanuman Prasad was also named as management witness, he was not produced.   He was posted as Asstt. Manager of Mirzapur Branch.   He was called for deposition and he knew that  the  alleged cheques   and draft vouchers  of the VIP customers   were actually  posted on the computer on 15.12.1999.   Shri Hanuman Prasad   was not produced  intentionally  and deliberately.  The petitioner had also demanded   transfer patch report  of 15.12.1999, which was not given to him.
 
20.	The petitioner, thereafter, stated in his reply in para 8 & 9 to the   statement  of the allegation no.2 drawn by the enquiry officer as follows:-
 

"8. BOTH THE CHEQUES OF THE V.I.P. CUSTOMERS WERE POSTED IN A.L.P.M. BUT THEY WERE NOT POSTED IN COMPUTER WHICH IS ALSO EVIDENCE FROM MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT-ME 9 WHICH IS PHOTOCOPY OF SUPLEMENTARY GENERATED FROM A.L.P.M. PASSING POWER OF SHRI V.K. SRIVASTAVA, THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT INCHARGE OF THE CURRENT SEAT WAS RUPEES FIFTY THOUSANDS (IN TRANSFER) WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF THE CHEQUE WAS RUPEES FIVE LACS. SHRI V.K. SRIVASTAVA NEVER USED OT SIGN CHEQUES OF HIGHER AMOUNTS HE ALWAYS USED TO SEND ALL CHEQUES/ INSTRUMETNS OF HIGHER AMOUNT DIRECTLY TO SHRI SRINATH, THE MANAGER/SECOND IN COMMAND OF THE BRANCH WHO USED TO SIGN SUCH CHEQUES/ INSTRUMENTS. SHRI SRINATH WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ART OF COMPUTER. NO COMPUTER WAS KEPT ON HIS TABLE. AFTERSIGNING THE CHEQUES, SINCE HE HAD KEPT THE CHEQUES IN HIS DRAWER AND WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR MAKING ENTRY IN TO THE COMPUTER, THE MATTERS WAS REPORTED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE HIS LETTERS DATED 16.12.99, THE REFERENCE OF WHICH HAS BEEN MADE IN THE STATEMETN OF ALLEGATION NO.3 OF THE LETTER OF IMPUTATION DATED 20.12.1999. Instead of taking any action for non providing of cheques for making entry into the computer, the matter was falsely twisted against the appellant in the same manner as the loading of Y2K patches on the computer has been misquoted in the statement of allegation No.1 of the letter of imputation.

9. THUS NEITHER THE APPELLANT HAD DISRUPTED THE WORKING OF THE BRANCH NOR HE HAD CAUSED ANY LOSS TO THE BANK. BOTH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF THE LETTER OF IMPUTATION HAS BEEN MISQUOTED AND IT NOT REFLECTING THE TRUE PICTURE."

21. The Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 14.10.2003 concured with the findings of the enquiry officer on charge nos.1 and 2, and found these charges to be serious. He found the allegations against the interest of the bank and to be dealt with sternly. The Disciplinary Authority reported that the petitioner was chargesheeted in the past also and did not have a good track record, punished him on charge no.1 with reduction of present basic pay by two stages, which will have the effect of postponing future increments. On charge no.2 he was punished with reduction of basic pay by one stage having effect of postponing his future increments. Both the punishments were allowed to have cumulative effect. The petitioner filed an appeal requesting the appellate authority to read his reply to the enquiry officer's report. The appellate authority held that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the statement of imputation dated 20.12.1999, though he applied for inspection/ verification of the related records and was duly allowed inspections. The enquiry officer submitted his report to which the petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter, the appellate authority observed as follows:-

"As regards point no.1, I find no merit in the contention of CSOE, because the order passed by the DA related to the letter of imputation dt.20.12.99 issued to the CSOE. The order has been passed by the DA based on the enquiry findings and other relevant records of the case.

As regards point no.2, I find that the DA was of the opinion that there were grounds for inquiring into the truth of the imputation of the misconduct against the CSOE and accordingly ordered for an inquiry into the truth of the charges. I therefore do not find any merit in the contention of the CSOE.

As regards point no.3, I find that the notice of enquiry held on 27.9.03 was duly given to the CSOE on 26.9.03 over telephone to the residence through his son and daughter. A letter was also reported to have been faxed to the Defence Representative, who in turn confirmed having sent the letter to the CSOE's residence which however was returned undelivered. A message was reported to have been dropped to the CSOE in this regard. I therefore do not agree with the contention of CSOE.

As regards point no.4, I find that the CSOE was duly given the opportunity of inspection/ verification of the documents which were made available to him. On the date of enquiry i.e. 22.8.03, the CSOE was also given time for presenting his defence witnesses at the next date of enquiry i.e. 22.9.03. However, as the CSOE could not produce the witnesses on 22.9.03, another opportunity was given to him on 25.9.03. However, as the presenting officer could not be present on 25.9.03, the enquiry was postponed to 27.9.03 and the message was conveyed to the CSOE and the defence representative over phone. While the defence representative participated in the enquiry, the CSOE had not turned up. No witnesses were made available by the DR also. By 2.00 PM, neither the CSOE nor any of the witnesses were presented in the enquiry. The enquiry was therefore dealt with accordingly. Full opportunity has been provided to the CSOE to present his defence witnesses. I therefore do not find any merit in the contention of the CSOE.

As regards point no.5, I find that out of the 5 allegations levelled against the CSOE, 2 allegations stand proved, while 2 stand as partly proved. The remaining allegation stands as not proved. Based on the above, the charges levelled against Shri Shukla stand as proved. I therefore find no merit in the CSOE's contention."

22. The appellate authority, thereafter, observed based on what has been stated in the foregoing paragraphs that he fully concurred with the views of the DA and held that charge nos.1 and 2 to be proved. He also found punishment commensurate to the misconduct committed by the officer and rejected his appeal.

23. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given copies of the document and opportunity to inspect them. The enquiry officer did not given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enuquiry proceedings and to lead evidence. The petitioner was present in the enquiry proceedings on 25.9.2003. The Presenting Officer deliberately absented himself. The enquiry was fixed two days later on 27.9.2003 at Allahabad. The enquiry officer referred in his enquiry report that the petitioner was staying in same hotel in which the witness Shri U.N. Mishra was staying but did not care to inform him about the adjourned date of the enquiry two days later; rather he telephoned the son and daughter of the petitioner at Gorakhpur. He did not inform as to how he got the telephone number of the residence of the petitioner at Gorakhpur and treated the information to be sufficient for the petitioner to have traveled back 400 kms. within a day to attend the enquiry. The enquiry had by that time closed examination of only one witness namely Shri U.N. Mishra, who also did not inform him that the enquiry was to be held two days later. The petitioner's daughter had to appear at Rudrapur in PCS examination. The petitioner was required to accompany her to Rudrapur, to appear in the examination on 28.9.2003.

24. He further submits that there is no charge of misappropriation or embezzlement. The allegations only relate to telling the Senior Manager that the computer was not functioning in the morning and thereafter started functioning in the afternoon, thereby finding that the petitioner has disrupted the functioning of the bank. The Senior Manager and the enquiry officer did not understand the Y2K problem, which the petitioner had to attend for which the patches were given to the petitioner, which could not be installed upto 16.12.1999. When the computer started working on the afternoon of 16th, the functioning became normal. The petitioner was not responsible of posting of two cheques. If there was any error in the software, the same had to be attended by the software provider. If the cheques were actually posted, the computer could not have ignored the entires. There was no allegation of any deliberate tampering or malfunctioning of the computer by the petitioner. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were completely ignorant of the reply of the petitioner and without considering his explanation, which was more technical in nature rather than based on evidence, the punishment has been awarded. Complete ignorance of technical knowledge and awareness by the enquiry officer and the appellate authority has come to the misfortune of the petitioner.

25. Learned counsel appearing for the bank submits that the petitioner was supplied with all the documents and was made aware of the date of the enquiry proceedings. He did not lead his evidence. He was telephonically informed about the next date of the enquiry on 27.9.2003. A letter was also sent to his address at Allahabad, which returned undelivered. No document was sought by him and thus enquiry was concluded after examining the management witnesses. The petitioner's reply was considered by the enquiry officer and that the grounds of appeal were also considered and discussed by the appellate authority.

26. We agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no allegation of any mischief, misappropriation and loss to the bank. The petitioner as System Administrator was responsible for maintaining the functioning of the computers of the Bank. It is alleged that he reported that the computers were not functioning on the morning of 16.12.1999, and thereafter again reported when they started functioning by 12.00 noon, and thus concluded that the petitioner disrupted the work of the bank. The allegation does not take into account the functioning of the computers. It is not denied that Y2K problem had affected the banking and financial institutions all over the world. The computer softwares recognised '00' as 1900 and not 2000. They were not programmed to do so. All over the world banks and financial institutions started taken steps to modify the software to recognise the year 2000. The bank also issued circulars and had instructed all System Administrator to load patches, which would enable the computer to recognise the year 2000, and accordingly the petitioner was working on it. In the circumstances, it was most natural for the petitioner, while loading software on the computer to inform the Manager as soon as the loading was complete and the functions became normal. The sincere effort made by the petitioner to load the patches on the software, and to immediately inform the Senior Officers as well as the computer starting functioning has been treated as disruption of the work of the bank.

27. We further find that there is no allegation that the petitioner had any motive or had committed any mischief in posting the two cheques of the VIP customers on 15.12.1999. The Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not have the basic knowledge and understanding of the computer operations, when they observed that the cheques posted by the bank officials had disappeared from the computer. The computer never recognises any customer, unless it is programmed to receive such commands. If the entries were posted on the server, there could be no reason for such entries to disappear, unless there was some fault in the server. There was no evidence led by the Bank that the petitioner had tempered with the computer programme, or had deliberately erased the entries, which were made by the clerks on duty.

28. The departmental enquiry was adjourned on 25.9.2004, and the petitioner was not informed personally, whereas the management witness was living in the same hotel in which the petitioner was living and was reported to be ill. Instead of informing the adjourned date to the petitioner, who was in the town living in the same hotel, the bank officials made telephone calls to petitioner's residence and sent information to him in writing of the date, which was two days later, and on which date the petitioner was required to accompany his daughter to appear in the competitive examination in the State of Uttarakhand.

29.	From the admitted facts, we are of the opinion    that deliberate   mischief   was played with the  petitioner by not informing the date of enquiry, which was adjourned from 25.9.2003 to 27.9.2003, and thereafter closing   the enquiry proceedings by only examining   one witness of the bank on 27.9.2003.  The petitioner could be easily informed with the adjourned date of enquiry and asked to  stay back upto  27.9.2003.  
 
30.	After going through the petitioner's reply and the orders, we find that both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority  did not   consider  petitioner's reply at all.  There is no mention of  petitioner's defence   in his reply dated 12.10.2003 running into 69 pages   along with 47 enclosures.  The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not even refer to his defence and the documents submitted by him  in reply to the enquiry officer report.    They have arrived at conclusions about mischief without having any knowledge of computer software.   They have  not discussed   the explanation given by the petitioner for working   on Y2K problem on the dates, when he is alleged   to have disrupted the banks functioning.  Instead of appreciating the petitioner's efforts for taking care of Y2K problem in terms of  circulars  issued by the bank and by loading patches  in the server, they have blamed him for delay in starting computer operations and in allowing the entires to disappear.  
 
31.	We further find  that the relevant witnesses, who had made the posting of the two cheques, and thereafter alleged that   they have disappeared from the computer   were not examined  to prove    the charges  and  in any case the bank did not suffer any financial loss, on account of the alleged misconduct. 
 

32. In our opinion the findings are perverse and thus we can interfere in the matter. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union Vs. Parry & Co. Ltd., AIR 1966 Cal 31 the Court observed that 'perverse finding' means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics Vs. CCE, AIR 1994 SC 1341 the Supreme Court observed that the Court can interfere, where the findings are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at such findings. In M.S. Narayanagouda Vs. Girijamma, AIR 1977 Cant 58 the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. A 'perverse verdict' may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Arulvelu & Anr. Vs. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 the Supreme Court relied upon Godfrey Vs. Godfrey, 106 NW 814 in which the Court defined 'perverse' as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper or correct. The Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10 observed while dealing with the scope of Art.32 and 226 of the Constitution as follows:-

"9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny.

10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse, But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with."

33. We are of the opinion that the charges against the petitioner were cooked up by the complainant, with ulterior motive. The Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority had no knowledge of the working of computer. There was no disruption of the work of the bank, nor any loss was caused to any customer of the bank. The entire proceedings were drawn in ignorance of the Y2K problem with the computers in banks and financial sectors, just before the beginning of the year 2000 and the challenge faced by the software experts and system administrators to tackle the problem.

34. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the Asstt. General Manager, UCO Bank, Regional Office, Varanasi (Disciplinary Authority); and the appellate order dated 17.1.2004 passed by the General Manager Operation-I, UCO Bank, Kolkata (Appellate Authority) are set aside. If these orders were implemented, the petitioner will be restored the benefits of the increments and the pay scales. The respondent bank will pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner for pursuing the litigation.

Dt.23.09.2011

SP/