Allahabad High Court
Bank Of Baroda, Corporate Centre ... vs Anil Kumar Agrawal And Another on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 51 of 2021
Appellant :- Bank Of Baroda, Corporate Centre And 2 Others
Respondent :- Anil Kumar Agrawal And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Lal
Counsel for Respondent :- Surendra Nath Dubey,A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Order on Exemption Application
The application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the order of the High Court is allowed.
The defect stands cured.
Order on Appeal
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 03.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition preferred by the petitioner non-appellant to challenge the order of punishment.
The non-appellant was chargesheeted with the following charges;
"While working as award staff at Budh Bazaar Branch, Station Road, Moradabad it is reported against you as under :
"You have availed a loan of Rs. 20,000/- on 28.3.2001 through loan against bank's own deposit a/c despite the fact that you were not having any DFR/deposit to avail this facility or to secure the loan. This loan was managed to be sanctioned by you for purchasing the NSCs to save Income Tax. Thus you enjoyed undue accommodation at the cost of bank's fund for your personal gain."
Your above acts, if proved, would amount to 'GROSS MISCONDUCT' under the Bipartite Settlement-para 19.5 (j). The Bank therefore charge you as under :
1. You did acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank.
2. You did acts of wrongful gain to yourself."
Pursuant to the charge-sheet aforesaid, inquiry was conducted and finally charges were found proved. The punishment of bringing the non-appellant down to lower stage by two increments was imposed for charge no. 1 and for charge no. 2, the punishment was for withdrawal of Head Cashier Allowance permanently. The learned Single Judge caused interference in the punishment after holding that charge against the delinquent was not made out in view of payment of loan amount with interest, ignoring the fact that charge against the delinquent was not in regard to non-payment of loan amount but the mode of taking the loan. It is not disputed by the non-appellant that he was not holder of FDR pursuant to which loan of Rs. 20,000/- was advanced to him. The FDR on record is in the name of third person and not in the name of non-appellant.
In view of the above, the delinquency committed by the non-appellant could not have been washed merely on payment of loan amount with interest which was otherwise payable. The learned Single Judge persuaded himself to interfere in punishment due to payment of loan amount. In para 10 of the judgment, it is stated that no default in payment has been pointed out as if the charge was regarding non-payment of the loan amount. The collusion of the non-appellant with the Branch Manager to obtain loan has also been washed in absence of the evidence. It is in ignorance of the fact that non-appellant could not produce the FDR in his name against which loan said to have been taken. In absence of it, inference can easily be drawn that Branch Manager colluded with for grant of loan.
It is well settled that standard of proof of charge is not same for departmental action as otherwise required in a criminal case. In the departmental inquiry even here-say evidence is permissible to prove the charges.
In view of the above, we find reason to cause interference in the finding of the learned Single Judge.
We, however, find that so far as the punishment no. 2 i.e. stoppage of Head Cashier Allowance permanently, is concerned, it is not one of the punishment provided in the tripartite settlement, thus, could not have been imposed on the non-appellant and otherwise even punishment of bringing the non-appellant down to the lower stage by two increments forever is excessive to the charges.
The judgment of the learned Single Judge is maintained to the extent of interference of punishment of denial of allowance as the punishment aforesaid is not provided under the Rules. The judgment is however set-aside for interference on the other punishment however with the substitution of the punishment with that of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect.
With the aforesaid, appeal is allowed in part. The judgment dated 03.03.2020 passed by learned Single Judge is substituted by the order passed in this appeal.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021
Shekhar
