Ramesh Chandra Pandey vs Central Bank Of India And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 22314 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


AFR
 
Reserved on 21.07.2023
 
Delivered on 18.08.2023
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16385 of 2008
 

 
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Pandey
 
Respondent :- Central Bank Of India And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Tripathi,A.P. Pandey,Abhishek Misra,J.S.P.Singh,O.P. Singh,R.C.Pandey (In Person),Santosh Kumar Mishra,Shashwat Anand
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.C. Tripathi,Abhishek Tandon,S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

1. Heard Shri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, the petitioner in person, who is a practising lawyer of this Court since long, along with Shri Om Subhash Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Bank.

2. By order dated 26.09.2022, the Apex Court made a request from this Court to take up this writ petition at an early date and conclude the proceedings as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of order. The period of six months has already expired in March, 2023.

3. The matter has been placed before me for the first time.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length on 21.07.2023, the judgment was reserved.

5. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2006, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from banking services and also the order dated 30.11.2007, whereby his departmental appeal against the punishment order was dismissed. A writ of mandamus has also been sought regarding reinstatement of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Manager in the respondent-Bank with all financial and other consequential benefits as per the pleadings contained in the writ petition.

6. As per the pleadings contained in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier in the office of Central Bank of India at Ram Kola Branch Deoria and, thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Sub Accountant/Assistant Manager, Padrauna Branch on 28.8.1985. On 31.12.1990, a new branch of the Central Bank of India was opened at Village Vishnupura, which was about 9 Kms. away from the office of Padrauna Branch Deoria and in addition to his duties, the petitioner was given the charge of the Branch Manager of the Vishnupura Branch. The petitioner worked on the post of Assistant Manager, Padrauna Branch as well as also discharged his duties on the post of Branch Manager, Vishnupura from 31.12.1990 to 22.06.1991 and during the said period, except the petitioner, no other employee was posted at Vishnupura Branch. Apart from the duty of officiating Branch Manager at Vishnupura, the petitioner had to work in the capacity of clerk, cashier and peon and also Manager to run cash remittance as per Banks Rules and norms and was also to fetch cash remittance to its nearest Padrauna Branch. There was no regular conveyance in between the Branches of Village Vishnupura and Padrauna, and the petitioner had to cover the said distance up and down, either by Rickshaw or Tanga, which created a lot of complications to the petitioner in attending the office of both the Branches on every working day due to non availability of other staffs. On 09.05.1991, the then Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Gorakhpur issued a show cause notice to the petitioner with regard to delay in deposit of remittance of Vishnupura Branch to the Padrauna Branch, which was replied by the petitioner on 18.05.1991. Vide order dated 12.08.1991, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Regional Manager, Gorakhpur w.e.f. 13.08.1991 in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. On 02.12.1991, the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Gorakhpur issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on flimsy, fake and vague allegations describing the following five charges:

(i) While working at Padrauna Branch Sri Pandey was deputed to Vishnupura Branch occasionally as Officiating Branch Manager from where he look cash of Rs. 1345/- of Rs. 2100/- of on 18.02.1991, 21.02.1991, 10.04.1991 respectively to deposit the same at Padrauna Branch. Though Sri Pandey reached at Padrauna Branch well in this the office of these dates, but he did not deposit the cash & kept the same with him unauthorisedly and deposited only after one two days the cash which he look on 18.02.1991 deposited on 20.02.1991, 21.02.1991 on 22.02.1991, and 10.04.1991 on 11.04.1991. He had thus defalcated Bank's money temporarily.

(ii). Sri Pandey misappropriated a credit entry of Rs. 800/- dated 24.03.1990 from term loan (Tractor) A/C Radha Kishan Singh & others to term loan (Kirana shop) A/C Chhedi Yadav by altering the credit voucher dt. 23/24.03.1990 for Rs. 800/- and making a fake entry in C/P sundry credits of the same amount on 24.01.1991 and withdraw the same on 29.01.1991 itself through a debit cash voucher putting his signature on overleaf as a taken of having received the amount for Chhedi Yadav. Thus, Sri Pandey withdraw Rs. 800/- in a fraudulent SION Oway.

(iii). Sri Pandey to minimize the overdrawings in his personal overdraft account, credited Rs. 11000/- on 13.11.1990 intentionally in his personal overdraft account, which was deposited by M/S Patna Pharmacy for credit to the overdraft account. To cover up the same, he also posted cheque No. 0515435 for Rs. 6831/- issued by M/S Patna Pharmacy for issue of a demand draft in his personal overdraft account on 13.11.1990 itself. This, Sri Pandey had acted unlawfully,

(iv). Sri Pandey passed his own conveyance reimbursement bill on 02.02.1991 for the month of January 1991 for Rs. 887.60 in the capacity of Manager though no power was vested in him to his own bill. He had this unauthorisedly taken the conveyance reimbursement and derived under pecuniary benefit.

(v). Sri Pandey released a voucher for Rs. 800/- on 21.01.1991 being the medical aid for the year 1991 in his favour without any sanction from the competent authority. He has thus, abused his official position.

7. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and concluded with submission of report dated 31.03.1993 by the Inquiry Officer recording the following findings:

(i) The charge No. 1 is not proved.

(ii) The charge No. 2 is proved upto the extent that C.S.O. has altered the entry of Rs. 800/- without verification etc. but he was not found guilty of withdrawing Rs. 800/- in fraudulent way. Thus, this part of the charge is not proved.

(iii) The charge is proved upto the extent that C.S.O. has posted the voucher/cheque in wrong account but mala fide intention not proved.

(iv) The fact remains that C.S.O. was not having power to pass his own conveyance bill thus he is found guilty of passing his own conveyance bill without any power. But other part of the charge that he derived undue pecuniary benefit could not be proved.

(v) C.S.O. not been found guilty for abusing his official position.

8. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 03.11.1993, recording his dissatisfaction with the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer, awarded punishment to the petitioner in the following terms:

(i) CHARGE NO. 1: Discharge from service in terms of Regulation 4(g) of Central Bank of India Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) 1976.

(ii) CHARGE NO. 2: Discharge from service in terms of regulation 4 (g) of Central Bank of India Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) 1976).

(iii) CHARGE NO. 3: "Reduction of two Increments in a time scale" in terms of Regulation 4 (e) of Central Bank of India Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) 1976).

(iv) CHARGE NO. 4: "Censure" in terms of regulation 4 (a) of Central Bank of India Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) 1976.

(v) CHARGE NO. 5: "Censure" in terms of regulation 4 (a) of Central Bank of India Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) 1976.

Looking to the above charges, I hereby award a consolidated punishment of DISCHARGE FROM SERVICE in terms of regulation 4 (a) of Central Bank of India Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) 1976 with immediate effect.

9. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 25.06.1994.

10. The aforesaid two orders were set aside by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 15.09.1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35032 of 1994 (Ramesh Chandra Pandey vs Central Bank of India & others), leaving it open to the Bank to proceed in accordance with law. The Division Bench took a view that principles of Natural Justice had been violated, particularly, in relation to the aspect when the Disciplinary Authority was proceeding to take a view different from what had been taken by the Enquiry Officer.

11. Pursuant to the order dated 15.09.1999, the Bank again proceeded with the matter and, by order dated 01.03.2001, awarded consolidated penalty of dismissal from service as per Regulations of 1976. The appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed on 21.05.2001.

12. The petitioner again challenged the punishment and appellate orders before this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46839 of 2002 (Ramesh Chandra Pandey vs Central Bank of India, Mumbai & others), which was allowed by the Division Bench by order dated 21.08.2006. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted herein-below:

"In the result, the impugned orders dated 1.3.2001 (Annexure No. 28 to the writ petition) passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 11.3.2002 (Annexure No. 32 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed. The matter is sent back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment as observed herein above by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording fullest opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order and in case any appeal is filed the appellate authority will decide the same in the same manner positively within a period of one month from the date of filing of such appeal. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court will not have any binding effect on the disciplinary authority or in case of appeal upon the appellate authority and it will reconsider the matter afresh in the same manner.

13. This Court, while remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, made it clear that the Authority had to take a decision on quantum of punishment and that the observations made in the order would not have any binding effect on the Disciplinary Authority or in case of appeal, upon the Appellate Authority.

14. After remand, the Disciplinary Authority again awarded same major penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 20.12.2006 (first order impugned in the present writ petition), which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority by dismissing the appeal by order dated 30.11.2007 (second order impugned in the present writ petition).

15. The submission of Shri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is to the effect that once the Enquiry Officer had clearly recorded in the enquiry report that the charge No. 1 was not proved, the petitioner was not found guilty of withdrawing Rs. 800/- in fraudulent way, while considering the charge No. 2, charge No. 3 was proved to some extent, but mala fide intention of the petitioner was not proved, the petitioner was not found deriving any undue pecuniary benefit under the charge No. 4 and lastly, while considering the charge No. 5, a clear finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was not found guilty for abusing his official position, it was not just and proper for the respondent to award any punishment to the petitioner.

16. It has further been argued by Shri O.P. Singh that initial order of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority were quashed by this Court on 15.09.1999 by recording cogent findings and, even after remand, same view was taken by the Authorities and same punishment was awarded, which was again set aside by this Court by order dated 21.08.2006, in which once it was clearly recorded that some delay occurred in deposit of cash amount from one Branch to another and that admitted case of the parties is of not withholding the amount by the petitioner with him and in absence of any proof of mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner, again extreme penalty of dismissal from services was unjustified. It has further been argued that the Bank Authorities had made their mind to somehow punish the petitioner, despite successive intervention made by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and, hence, the orders impugned are in the teeth of orders passed by this Court.

17. On merits of the punishment order and the departmental proceedings held against the petitioner, reliance has been place by Shri O.P. Singh on the following authorities:

(1) Ajay Kumar Chaudhay vs U.O.I. through its Secretary & Another; 2015 (7) SCC 291

(2) Ram Ratan vs State of U.P. and others; 2019 (4) ADJ 870 (LB)

(3) State of U.P and others. vs Saroj Kumar Sinha; 2010 (1) Supreme 561

(4)Indrani Bai (Smt.) vs Union of India and others; 1994 Supp (2) SCC 256

(5)Tajmahal Hotel vs Industrial Tribunal & others; 2010 (0) Supreme (DEL) 428

(6) Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank and others; 2009 (1) Supreme 438

(7) Punjab National Bank and others vs Kunj Behari Misra; 1998 (7) SCC 84

(8) State Bank of India and others vs K.P. Narayanan Kutty; 2003(2) SCC 449

(9) State Bank of India and others vs Arvind K. Shukla; 2004 (13) SCC 797

(10) Ranjit Singh vs Union of India and others; 2006 (4) SCC 153

(11) Lav Nigam vs Chairman & MD ITI Ltd. & another; 2006 (9) SCC 440

(12) S.P. Malhotra vs Punjab National Bank and others; 2013 (7) SCC 251

(13) Punjab National Bank and others vs K.K. Verma; 2011 AIR (SC) 120

(14) State Bank of India. vs D.C. Aggarwal; 1992 Law Suit (SC) 671

(15) Oriental Bank of Commerce and others vs S.S. Sheokand and Another; 2014 (5) SCC 172

(16) S.N. Narula vs Union of India and others; 2011 (4) SCC 591

(17) Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) and others vs Director General of Civil Aviation and others; 2011 (5) SCC 435

(18) Mohd. Yunus Khan vs State of U.P. and others; 2010 (7) Supreme 970

(19) Chairman-cum-M.D. Coal India Ltd. and others vs Ananta Saha and others; 2011 (5) SCC 142

(20) Nishith Chandra Tiwari vs Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd.; 2003 Law Suit (ALL) 532

(21) Gopal Kumar Mahur vs State of U.P. and another; 2008 Law Suit (All) 517

(22) Union of India vs Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others; 2010 (2) Supreme 521

(23) M.P. Gupta vs Syndicate Bank and others; 2011 (2) AWC 1193

(24) Shripati Tripathi vs State of U.P. and others; 2010 (10) ADJ 331 (DB)

(25) Syam Babu Savita vs State of U.P. and another; 2015 (2) ADJ 614

(26) Ram Niyadi Rai vs State of U.P. and another; 2016 (9) ADJ 603 (DB)

(27) Constable AP-90 Shashi Kant Pandey vs State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary and another (Writ A No. 36620 of 2008 decided on 24.04.2015

(28) N. Ram vs Union of India and others; 2017 (11) ADJ 300 (DB)

(29) Rahman Bakhsh Mansoori vs Union of India and another; 2017 Law Suit (ALL) 1182

(30) S.K. Dua vs State of Haryana and another; 2008 (1) Supreme 95

18. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid authorities, it has been argued that once violation of principles of Natural Justice at different stages of the departmental proceedings is well established, punishment order vitiates in law. It has further been argued in the light of ratio laid down that once the enquiry report reads in favour of the delinquent employee, either wholly or in part, but the Disciplinary Authority proceeds to take a view different from the one taken by the Enquiry Officer, while passing the final order, it is the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to record cogent reasoning as to why it has taken a different view in the matter and the punishment orders impugned in the present writ petition suffer from the said error, which is apparent on the face of the record. It has further been argued that once the punishment orders are held to be illegal, the petitioner would be entitled to be reinstated in his services with all consequential benefits. However, Shri Singh submits that since the petitioner has already crossed the age of superannuation long back, though his actual reinstatement on the post is not possible, he may be awarded financial benefits setting aside the termination order which the petitioner would have been entitled, had the punishment order not been passed.

19. Shri O.P. Singh has also emphasized upon the aspect that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded that the petitioner is habitual of defrauding the Bank by dishonesty for his own personal gains and that the said opinion formed by the Authority is based upon the punishment order passed earlier, whereby four increments had been stopped. He submits that the said order of stoppage of increments formed subject matter of Writ A No. 14246 of 1984 (Ramesh Chandra Pandey vs Union of India & others), which was allowed by this Court by an order dated 30.03.2018 and the petitioner was found entitled to benefits including 50% of the arrears of salary.

20. Per contra, Shri Abhishek Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner was found indulged in activities contrary to the financial interest of the Bank as well as customers and the Disciplinary Authority, time and again, after conducting thorough analysis of the material before it, rightly awarded punishment, inasmuch as, it is well settled that in banking services slightest financial embezzlement or misappropriation made by any employee of the Bank is sufficient to award major penalty. Insofar as various proceedings held before this Court as argued by Shri O.P. Singh, the submission of Shri Abhishek Tandon is that though it is true that the initial punishment orders were set aside on 15.09.1999, intervention was made on the ground that there was some violation of principles of Natural Justice at the time when the Disciplinary Authority was proceeding to take a view different from the opinion formed by the Enquiry Officer. He further submits that insofar as second round of litigation covered by Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46839 of 2002 is concerned, though the punishment order was set aside by this Court, despite making certain observations in the order dated 21.08.2006, this Court made it clear that observations made in the order would not have any binding effect on the Disciplinary Authority or in case of appeal, upon the Appellate Authority and that they would reconsider the matter afresh in the same manner. Shri Tandon further argues that though in the impugned punishment order dated 20.12.2006, inflicting an earlier penalty of stoppage of four increments has been referred to by the Disciplinary Authority and it has been observed that the petitioner is habitual of defrauding the Bank by dishonesty for his own personal gains, this was not the only reason recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, but was only a passing observation and, therefore, the petitioner cannot get advantage merely because learned Single Judge allowed Writ A No. 14246 of 1984 by order dated 30.03.2018 setting aside the punishment order of stoppage of four increments. He further emphasises that even otherwise, the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 30.03.2018 was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court by allowing Special Appeal No. 117 of 2019 (The Central Bank of India and 2 others vs Ramesh Chandra Pandey and 3 others) by order dated 13.02.2019 and apart from setting aside the order of learned Single Judge, the writ petition was also dismissed. It is further contended that against the order of Special Appellate Court dated 13.02.2019, though a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 22415 of 2019 (Rameseh Chandra Pandey vs Central Bank of India & others) was filed by the petitioner, there is no interim order passed by the Apex Court and, hence, insofar as the stoppage of four increments is concerned, the said punishment has also attained finality and mere pendency of Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court would confer no benefit upon the petitioner.

21. Regarding the principle of finality attached to an adjudication, Shri Abhishek Tandon, learned counsel for the Bank, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Ramachandra Rao vs S. Nagabhushana Rao and others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1460, which deals with the principle of res judicata. He has also placed reliance upon another judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Tapan Kumar Mondal vs Smt. Suprava Mondal & others, reported in 2018 SCC Online Cal 2312, to emphasis that the order of remand passed by this Court was limited to the extent of providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, hence, the petitioner cannot get any advantage out of any order passed by this Court while allowing various writ petitions particularly when it was left open for the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority to take an independent decision without being influenced by the observations recorded in the order passed by the writ court.

22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that though the Enquiry Officer, in his report dated 31.03.1993, had recorded that the charge No. 1 is not proved; the charge No. 2 is proved upto the extent that C.S.O. has altered the entry of Rs. 800/- without verification etc. but he was not found guilty of withdrawing Rs. 800/- in fraudulent way, thus, this part of the charge is not proved; the charge is proved upto the extent that C.S.O. has posted the voucher/cheque in wrong account but mala fide intention not proved; the fact remains that C.S.O. was not having power to pass his own conveyance bill thus he is found guilty of passing his own conveyance bill without any power, but other part of the charge that he derived undue pecuniary benefit could not be proved; the C.S.O. not been found guilty for abusing his official position, the Disciplinary Authority had recorded cogent reasoning to take a different view after analysing the entire material on record, which formed part of the record of enquiry proceedings. Although the said order was set aside by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46839 of 2002, once the matter was remanded for the purposes of taking an independent decision without being influenced by the observations recorded in the order dated 21.08.2006, the Disciplinary Authority again analysed five charges levelled against the petitioner and found that he was guilty of misappropriating the credit entry of Rs. 800/- of T.L. account in the name of Radha Krishna and others and withdrew it fraudulently. The Disciplinary Authority also recorded that the petitioner credited Rs.11000/- on 13.11.1990, which was deposited by M/s Patna Pharmacy for credit of their overdraft cheque account and to cover up the same, he posted cheque for Rs. 6831/- issued by M/s Patna Pharmacy for issuance of demand draft in his personal overdraft account on 13.11.1990. It was further recorded that the petitioner abused his official position by taking payment of medical aid for 1991 without having sanction from the Competent Authority. It is further recorded that the petitioner himself utilized the bank funds some way or the other for his own benefit, he acted in a manner to benefit himself by ignoring Rules and Regulations as well as service condition of the Bank and that the Enquiry Officer while submitting the report had not gone into the details of conduct of the petitioner, which was apparent on record.

23. I also find that insofar as punishment in the nature of stoppage of four increments and its effect is concerned, it was only a sweeping observation made by the Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 20.12.2006 and the punishment order was passed considering the entire facts and circumstances and not merely because in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was habitual of defrauding the Bank by dishonesty for his own personal gains in view of the previous punishment. Moreover, as already discussed, though the punishment order of stoppage of four increments was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the said judgement was reversed and the writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench while allowing Special Appeal filed by the Bank and the said order has neither been stayed nor has it been set aside by the Apex Court, though the Special Leave Petition against the same may be pending.

24. The Supreme Court has time and again emphasized the importance of financial probity in Bank Services. It is an inbuilt requirement for the functioning of the banking system. The officers and employees of bank act as trustee of the people's faith and confidence in the banking system and if the officer/employee commits misconduct and if it is found that for his personal gain, he has acted against the interest of the depositor, he must be dealt with iron hands and does not deserve to be dealt with any sympathy.

25. In State Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, the Supreme Court has taken the similar view by observing that a bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently.

26. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364 a submission was made before the Supreme Court that on account of misconduct of the employee, the bank did not suffer any loss. The said submission was rejected by the Supreme Court and it was held that the conduct and discipline are unseparable from the functioning of the bank employee.

27. Reference in this regard on identical lines can also be made to judgments of this Court in the case of Tribhuwan Nath Mishra Vs. Committee of Management of Allahabad Dist. Coop. Bank Ltd. And Others, reported in 2007 (3) ADJ 220, decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Nath Gupta vs Enquiry Officer, R.K. (Rai), Allahabad Bank and Others, reported in JT 2003 (3) SC 322 and in the case of Ram Prasad Gupta vs Allahabad Bank and another reported in 2004 (1) AWC 697.

28. Considering the entire material on record as placed before this Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the petitioner in person and having scrutinized the law referred to herein-above, I find that punishment awarded to the petitioner was just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.

29. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 18.08.2023

Sazia