Jeet Singh vs State Bank Of India Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2458 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Judgment reserved on :06.01.2022
 
Judgment delivered on :11.05.2022
 

 
Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4896 of 2006
 

 
Petitioner :- Jeet Singh
 
Respondent :- State Bank Of India Through Chairman Mumbai And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- K K Gautam,Abhinan Gautam,Jeet Singh (In Person)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- N.K.Seth,Anurag Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard Shri Jeet Singh, petitioner who appeared and argued his case in person and Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party who argued the matter through video conferencing.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner an erstwhile Chief Manager of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred as 'the Bank') has challenged the order dated 07.08.2003 dismissing him from service as also the Appellate order dated 02.11.2002. The reliefs consequential to the main relief have also been sought. In addition to it there are two reliefs being relief no. (v) and (vi) which are unrelated to the main subject matter. One is with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses and the other is with regard to release and delivery of title deeds of the petitioner to the property mortgaged by him while availing education loan for his son.

As regards medical reimbursement, in the counter affidavit it has been stated that whatever dues were admissible have already been paid. With regard to release of title deeds it has been stated that the said relief is unrelated to the issue of dismissal from services. Accordingly, as regards these two reliefs if the petitioner is aggrieved any further it is open for him to initiate separate proceedings, as, the said reliefs are not related to the main subject matter in issue which is of his dismissal from service.

The petitioner was posted in the Shakti Nagar Branch of the Bank when it is alleged that he committed certain illegalities/irregularities during the period 28.09.1991 to 02.09.1995 involving misappropriation of Bank money etc. He was placed under suspension on 17.10.1997. A charge sheet was issued to him on 15.03.2001. As many as 6 charges were levelled against him. Briefly stated they were regarding (1) fictitious/ fraudulent transactions through Current Account No. 11/210 opened in the name of M/s Baghal & Company by using the said account and extending undue credits to various accounts fictitious debits to various accounts and also of having diverted interest recovered on overdraft accounts to borrowers' accounts with an intention to provide undue favour to the borrowers. Cheques received for realization under LSC/DDP were also alleged to have been diverted to afford fictitious credit to borrowers' accounts and attempt to cover up the irregularities from Auditors/Controllers through such fictitious entries/account was alleged. All this resulted in substantial financial loss.

Second charge was regarding sanctioning enhanced limits against Bank's norms without conducting pre-section survey/appraisal, on the basis of incomplete applications/ applications obtained on other than prescribed forms. It was also the allegation that the petitioner had sanctioned limits beyond the jurisdiction of the branch disobeying zonal office instructions for restricting advances. Petitioner did not verify borrowers' track records and did not compile opinion reports on borrowers/guarantors at the time of sanction/renewal/enhancement of credit limits. Bank guarantees were issued by the petitioner without sanctioning regular limits and without reporting to the Controllers. Loans/overdrafts in a reckless manner much beyond the discretionary powers vested in him and also that he did not submit the control returns. Overdrawings allowed were not covered by primary security. Petitioner did not observe norms for financing 2nd hand vehicles and financed 2nd hand vehicles without valid route permits and without obtaining administrative clearance from the Controllers. Accommodation loans were granted by the petitioner who misused the financial powers vested in him. All these caused substantial financial loss to the Bank.

Thirdly, the petitioner failed to obtain collateral/ adequate collateral security by way of equitable mortgage to secure Bank's interest in several cases. The petitioner credited equitable mortgage at a centre not specified therefor. Formalities for equitable mortgage were not completed. Security documents obtained by the petitioner were understamped/ defective. Other irregularities were also alleged. All of which resulted in jeopardizing the Banks's interest and causing financial loss to it.

Fourthly, petitioner did not submit BMDP Statements to the Controllers nor sanction of limits was advised to them. There was no evidence on record that supervision and follow up of advances was carried out by him. Irregular features in borrowal accounts were also not advised.

Fifthly, petitioner did not ensure that the General Power of Attorney was obtained/ registered with the NTPC/NCL.

Sixthly, petitioner called up loan without controller's approval and also issued recovery certificates to the Revenue Authorities in respect of advances which were not covered under U.P. Public Money (Recovery) Act, 1972.

Details of the allegations on which the charges were imputed, were also given in the charge sheet.

As per the procedure prescribed a preliminary hearing of the Disciplinary Proceedings was fixed for 14.05.2001 but the petitioner did not appear and the next date was fixed as 17.05.2001 when the preliminary inquiry was held. Petitioner denied the charges, therefore, regular inquiry was held thereafter.

According to the opposite parties the petitioner kept on sending letters and representations to the Authorities of the Bank, but, did not participate in the Inquiry. On 17.01.2002 though the charged officer was present but he did not mark his presence in the inquiry instead he insisted that two of his letters be received by the Inquiry Authority before marking his presence in the inquiry. The Inquiry Authority refused to receive the letters and asked the charged officer to participate in the inquiry and say whatever he wanted to say in the inquiry proceedings instead of through letters. The charged officer walked out from the inquiry proceedings and sent the letters to the Inquiry Authority by post through Post Office, Shakti Nagar. He did not co-operate in the inquiry. Consequently, it was concluded ex-parte on 18.01.2002 as the petitioner did not participate.

The charged officer received the Presenting Officer's brief on 19.02.2002 sent through Bank Messenger. The charged officer did not submit his defence brief despite instructions conveyed in the inquiry proceedings concluded on 18.01.2002 and also through letters.

The inquiry report running into 92 pages is on record having been filed as Annexure No. CA-2 to the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondents filed along with application dated 14.05.2009. The Inquiry Officer in his report has discussed the facts and evidence relevant to the case and has found the charges/allegations against the petitioner proved.

The Court has perused the detailed inquiry report and finds that it is based on evidence. The petitioner of course did not co-operate and participate in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer has also recorded specific findings with regard to the financial loss caused to the Bank on account of lapses and misconduct on the part of the petitioner. After recording his findings in respect of each of the charges/allegations the Inquiry Authority has recorded his final opinion/conclusion as under:-

"ARTICLE OF CHARGE: -

From the above discussions on dealing with the allegations, I find that the lapses and acts of omissions on the part of the charged officer are serious and grave. The charge officer is found grossly negligent in protecting the bank's interest. Further I find that the charged officer has not only violated the well established instructions of the Bank but indulged in manipulating the Bank's Books and records in his own handwriting as also reckless financing. The charged officer has misutilised his official position for the benefits not only to himself but for borrrowers/ suppliers as well. The charged officer has not only concealed the facts from the controller but has also removed vouchers, cheques etc. surreptitiously to avoid his involvement in these transactions/ manipulations. However, taking the matter in its entirety the credentials of the charged officer are suspect. After carefully going through the exhibits listed by me during the course of enquiry, Presenting Officer's brief and in the absence of the charged officer's defence brief, I find that :

Allegation No.1 Proved

Allegation No.2 Proved

Allegation No.3 Proved

Allegation No.4 Proved

Allegation No.5 Proved

Allegation No.6 Proved

CONCLUSION:

On the basis of what has been discussed above and the documentary evidences produced during the enquiry hearing it is concluded that the charged officer while posted as Chief Manager at Shakti Nagar Branch during the period from 28.09.1991 to 02.09.1995, failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank official and highly detrimental to the Bank's interest in violation of Rule 50(4) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules.

(G.K.MEHROTRA)

INQUIRING AUTHORITY

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE,

LUCKNOW.

DATED: 02.08.2002"

Copy of the inquiry report/findings contained therein dated 02.08.2002 was delivered to him for making his submission in respect thereof, but, he did not file any response to the same instead he submitted two representations dated 09.10.2002 and 18.01.2003. After considering the aforesaid representations and the inquiry report as also facts and evidence on record the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service on 07.08.2003. The said order is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The dismissal order contains a detailed discussions of the charged levelled against the petitioner the facts and evidence in support thereof and also records the non co-operation of the petitioner in the proceedings and thereafter conclusions are recorded as under:-

"3. In view of the above facts. the Articles of Charges against you as contained in the charge sheet are proved that you have failed to discharge your duties with utmost honesty, integrity. devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer and highly detrimental to bank's interest in violation of Rule 50(4) of SBI Officers Service Rules.

4 After applying my mind independently and considering the gravity and seriousness of the charges proved against you, I have decided to impose upon you a penalty of "Dismissal" from bank's service in terms of Rule 67(j) at SBI Officers Service Rules read with Rule 68 of the Rules ibid. In view of the loss around Rs. 37. 62 lacs suffered by the Bank as a result of lapses on your part, I order that gratuity amount payable to you be forfeited in terms of Section 4, Sub-Section 6(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Further, the period of suspension will be treated as such and no salary and allowances, increments (other than subsistence already paid to you) shall be payable to you for the suspension period. I order accordingly- This order shall take effect from the date it is served upon you.

5. A copy of this letter is being placed on your service file.

6. If you desire to make and appeal to Appelate Authority against my order imposing upon you the penalty specified above, "you may do so within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, as provided for in Rule 69 of SBI Officers Service Rules.

7. Meanwhile, please acknowledge receipt.

Yours faithfully,

Chief General Manager

Appointing Authority"

Against the order of dismissal an Appeal was preferred before the Appellate Committee which on a consideration of the facts and issues involved, dismissed the Appeal on 02.11.2002. While deciding the Appeal the Appellate Committee has taken into consideration the pleas of the appellant-petitioner but did not find merit therein. It has given its reasons for rejecting the appeal. Relevant extract of the Appellate order is quoted below:-

"The Committee have carefully gone through all the records of the case and our observations on the issues raised by the appellant are as under, seriatim :

(1) The appellant's contention that he was not given reasonable opportunity of defence is not correct. In fact, the appellant did not co-operate with the enquiry proceedings by remaining absent on all the days of enquiry except one day, nor did he inform about his inability to participate in the enquiry. He did not submit either his defence brief or defence submission on the findings of the Inquiring Authority, even though 140 prosecution documents and 26 defence documents were made available to him. His attempt to put the blame on the Auditors/senior functionaries for not highlighting/bringing to his notice the irregularities at the material time is totally unacceptable.

(ii) The appellant's attempt to put the blame on the Accountant/Field Officer/Clerical staff cannot be accepted as it has been conclusively proved during the enquiry that the appellant himself had prepared/altered the vouchers and afforded unauthorised credits to various account holders.

(iii) As the lapses committed by the appellant were of malafide nature, partial recovery does not reduce the gravity of the offence.

(iv) The appellant's contention that the charge-sheet was made in a cursory manner has no relevance with regard to the allegations proved against him. The appellant's actions in affording unauthorised credits to different accounts and sanctioning loans without adhering to Bank's laid down norms/instructions clearly establish malafide on his part.

(v) As regards the appellant's insistence for the opinion of handwriting expert, it was not considered necessary as the handwriting, initials/signatures appearing on the impugned vouchers/day books/ledger sheets, etc. match with those of the appellant.

(vi) The appellant was charged with misappropriation of bank's funds in a large scale and not for crediting illegal money in his account or having assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Therefore, the appellant's contention that it was not proved in the enquiry that the money against different vouchers/instruments were credited to his account and that he was having assets disproportionate to his known source of income has no relevance so far the charges proved are concerned.

(vii) & (viii) The past track record of the appellant does not dilute the gravity of the offences committed by him which were proved in the enquiry.

5. The Committee having perused the records of the case and the submissions of the appellant is of the view that the contentions of the appelant do not rebut the charges held as proved against him. The Committee also deliberated on the quantum of penalty and is of the view that in view of the grave nature of charges the penalty imposed is appropriate to the lapses of the appellant. In view of the above, the Committee is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Appointing Authority. The appeal, thus, stands rejected and the Committee orders accordingly.

6. This order may be communicated to the appellant by the Dy. General Manager (Appeals & Review)."

Challenging the aforesaid orders this writ petition has been filed.

Before this Court only three arguments were raised by the petitioner appearing in person. Firstly, out of 55 prosecution documents 13 were given to him. Secondly, out of 36 defence documents only 6 documents were given. Hence, the petitioner could not submit his reply. This, according to him, was violative of principal of natural justice and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered. Thirdly, the Inquiry Officer was of the same rank as the petitioner, therefore, the inquiry is vitiated. He did not raise any other argument before the Court.

Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the proceedings were held ex-parte as the petitioner inspite of due notice and sufficient opportunity did not participate therein. No written brief was submitted by the petitioner. No reply was submitted by the petitioner to the charges also. He did not participate in the inquiry. As regards the allegation that certain prosecution documents have not been provided to the petitioner Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that only such documents have been relied in the inquiry report and by the Disciplinary Authority which were served upon the petitioner and he is not able to show that it is otherwise, therefore, no prejudice has been caused him and this can not be a ground for interference in the matter. As regards the defence documents which could not be supplied he submitted that reasons have been mentioned in Para 12 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.02.2002 for non supply of such defence documents on account of their non availability but he submitted that the relevance of such documents has not been demonstrated before this Court so as to establish any prejudice in this regard.

From the proceedings of the inquiry, inquiry report and the supplementary counter affidavit of the Bank it is clearly borne out that the petitioner did not appear in the preliminary hearing fixed for 14.05.2001 inspite of notice in this regard on 12.05.2001, though, he did participate in the preliminary hearing held on 17.05.2001 and denied the charges. The Inquiry Authority passed the order requiring the petitioner to submit consent letter of his defence representative by 31.05.2001 and also asked the Presenting Officer to submit list of prosecution documents to the petitioner by 09.06.2001. The petitioner was permitted to peruse the prosecution documents by 16.05.2001 and submit his list of defence documents by 26.06.2001. The petitioner was also permitted to peruse the defence documents by 04.07.2001. Copy of the proceedings held on 17.05.2001 was given to the petitioner. Inspite of above the petitioner did not comply with the orders of the Inquiry Authority and did not submit his consent letter nor did he peruse the prosecution documents inspite of a second opportunity afforded to him in this regard on 06.07.2001. He also did not submit the list of his defence documents by 10.08.2001. The petitioner perused the prosecution documents on 3/5.9.2001. On 22.09.2001 the petitioner informed that several prosecution documents were not available for perusal whereupon he was advised by the Inquiry Authority that this issue would be taken up in the inquiry and that he should submit his defence documents by 04.10.2001 but the petitioner did not submit the list by the said date.

Hearing in the inquiry was held on 16.10.2001 which was not attended by the petitioner or his defence representative inspite of having been informed about the date, place and time of hearing. The Inquiry Authority waited till 3.00 p.m. but when the petitioner did not turn up he adjourned the hearing and fixed the matter for submitting the list of defence documents by 23.10.2001 and a detailed order was passed by him and copy of the proceedings of the said date were sent to the petitioner. On 17.01.2002 the petitioner presented himself in the inquiry but, as stated earlier, when he was asked to mark his attendance he refused to do so and insisted on submission of certain letters whereupon the Inquiry Authority directed the petitioner to first mark his attendance in the inquiry and then to state whatever in the inquiry itself instead of giving letters, but, the petitioner opted to leave the inquiry without marking his attendance. The Inquiry Officer waited till 12.12 p.m. but the petitioner did not turn up whereupon the Inquiry Authority proceeded with the inquiry. The record reveals that an inquiry was conducted thereafter on 17.01.2002. The next date fixed in the inquiry was 18.01.2002 but the petitioner did not appear. Accordingly, the Inquiry Authority proceeded with the inquiry asking the Presenting Officer to present the defence documents also who stated that documents at Serial No. 10, 20 and 23 were already listed in the list of prosecution documents and documents at Serial No. 16 and 30 of the list of the defence documents dated 03.11.2001 were not specific hence he was not able to present the same. A non availability certificate dated 16.01.2002 regarding defence documents issued by Shakti Nagar Branch was also submitted. Final inquiry was accordingly concluded on 18.01.2002 and the Presenting Officer was directed to submit his prosecution brief to the petitioner with a copy of the Inquiring Authority by 31.01.2002. The petitioner was required to submit his defence brief to the Inquiring Authority within 15 days of receipt of the prosecution brief. Copy of the proceedings dated 18.01.2002 were sent to the petitioner along with photocopy of all the documents. This fact is admitted to the petitioner in his supplementary affidavit dated 18.12.2014 wherein he has annexed copy of the letter dated 18.01.2002 through which he was served copies of the proceedings held on 17.01.2002 and 18.01.2002. Inspite of it, the petitioner did not submit his defence brief. He also did not submit his response to the findings of the Inquiry Authority. The inquiry report was served upon him on 13.08.2002 and vide order dated 11.09.2002 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37404 of 2002 he had been directed to reply to the inquiry report along with evidence in support of his defence by 11.10.2002. Inspite of it he did not comply the said order of the High Court and did not submit any rebuttal of the findings of the Inquiry Authority.

From the facts on record the Court finds that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner but he did not avail the said opportunity, therefore, he can not complain now. As already stated the list of defence documents has not been filed by him before this Court nor has he demonstrated, either in the pleadings or during arguments, as to which of the defence document was relevant for his defence as against the charges levelled against him and as to how its non availability has prejudiced him. Similarly he has not been able to show as to which of the prosecution document was not provided to him and how was it relevant and how it prejudiced his defence in the disciplinary proceedings nor has he been able to demonstrate that any of the documents not supplied to him has been taken into consideration either by the Inquiring Authority or the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard are not acceptable.

The petitioner also submitted that the inquiry was held by an Officer of the same rank as that of the petitioner, however, the Court is of the view that there is no bar in the State Bank of India Service Rules in this regard. The procedure for disciplinary action in such matters is prescribed in Rule 68 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, which have been adhered. The petitioner has not pleaded nor demonstrated any malafide on the part of the Inquiring Authority nor any clash of interest between them to seek any benefit in his service or career. Moreover, on a perusal of the inquiry report the Court finds that the findings are based on evidence which has been discussed and not on conjecture and surmises. Furthermore, the said evidence has been considered by the Disciplinary Authority who has also applied his mind independently. Thereafter, Appellate Committee has also considered the matter and applied its mind. As such, in the facts of this case, this by itself does not persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

Considering the scope of judicial review in such matters and also considering the allegations levelled against him regarding misappropriation of funds etc. and his conduct, which have been found proved the facts and evidence discussed in the inquiry report, the findings of fact recorded therein and as it is not the case of the petitioner that there is any perversity in any of the findings nor any such perversity has been demonstrated therein nor it has been so demonstrated in respect to the order of Disciplinary Authority nor that of Appellate Committee and as the three points raised by the petitioner during arguments are not acceptable for the reasons already given earlier, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court on 21.08.2007 the arrears subsistence allowance as stated in the counter affidavit of the Bank have been paid to the petitioner.

The writ petition is dismissed except for relief nos.(v) and (vi) for which the petitioner may initiate separate proceedings as already observed in the earlier part of this judgment.

(Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 11.05.2022

R.K.P./Shanu/-