Allahabad High Court
Pushp Raj Singh vs General Manager,(H.R.M.) Indian ... on 31 March, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2562 of 2023
Petitioner :- Pushp Raj Singh
Respondent :- General Manager,(H.R.M.) Indian Bank Corporate Office, Chennai And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Daya Shankar Yadav,Vaibhav Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- Gopal Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Daya Shankar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.2.2022 passed by Zonal Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Indian Bank by which he has been removed from the services. He has also challenged the order dated 15.10.2022 passed by Deputy General Manager (H.R.M.), Indian Bank Corporate Office, Chennai-the appellate authority thereby rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Senior Clerk in respondents -Bank which is a class III post and during the period from 1.5.2019 to 10.6.2020 for some transactions in sundry 'credit account',, transactions in saving bank accounts, transactions in deceased account irregularities in EVV (Electronic Voucher Verification) and misuse of bank slink password of other employees, an explanation was sought from the petitioner on 1.7.2020.
4. The petitioner replied to the said charges and memo submitted to him. The petitioner also made representations and admitted his guilt but stated that a lenient view of the acts of the petitioner may be taken and he may be excused for the irregularities which was on account of the lack of knowledge he also stated that all the money which has been defalcated by him had been returned and hence no loss has been caused to the bank. The Supreme Court, in multiple decisions, has clearly recognized the fact that bank officials are held to a higher standard of integrity in respect of their conduct, as they directly deal with the financial interests of the customers.
5. The inquiry against the petitioner was concluded by the inquiry officer and submitted to the disciplinary authority who by means of the impugned order has passed order of punishment of removal from the services. While passing the said order the inquiry officer has considered in detail the allegations against the petitioner as well as all the data pertaining to the said transactions and was of the opinion that the petitioner had debited several accounts of the deceased persons without preparing supporting vouchers. He even conducted transactions in the accounts of the deceased and caused settlement without any consent of the Branch Head or the competent authority and money was withdrawn leaving Rs.1 only in those accounts. Subsequent to defrauding the bank he had conducted unauthorised transactions aggregating to Rs.4,39,195.00 which was declared fraud by the bank and the amount involved in the said transactions for which the petitioner was solely responsible the amount was realized from him.
6. The main ground urged by the petitioner in defence is that he was not aware of the rules and regulations of the bank and the respondents should have taken a lenient view of the matter.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submits that the acts conducted by the petitioner while dealing with the customers and withdrawing the money and illegally benefiting himself are very serious acts of misconduct and entire reputation of the bank is at stake The said acts could not be disputed by the petitioner and also he has admitted the same. It is further submitted that it is in aforesaid circumstances that the proceedings were initialed against the petitioner after following procedure prescribed and there is no deviation thereof nor any such allegations being made by the petitioner. He further submits that full opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He has further submitted that even at the appellate stage there is detailed consideration of the facts of the case as well as the grounds raised by the petitioner and the appellate authority has also upheld the order of punishment rejecting the appeal. He has further submitted that this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not have no power to sit in appeal over the facts of the case once they have been proved during the disciplinary proceedings and only in case there is any irregularity in the procedure or that no opportunity having been given that this Court would interfere this stage. He submits that neither there is any allegation of the petitioner that no procedure was followed or was violated and on the other hand, looking to the seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner, who was a bank official. The doctrine of loss of confidence would be invoked for taking action against the petitioner. He relies upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State Bank of India and another Vs. Bela Bagchi and others, decided on 31.8.2005 in Appeal (Civil) No.5364 of 2005 which are as follows:-
A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with 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. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, [1996] 9 SCC 68, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon 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. The charge against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance."
Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is noticed that there are serious allegations against the petitioner for defalcation of the funds of the bank . The facts in issue are not disputed by the petitioner because there is electronic trail upon the transactions in the bank and, hence, all the actions are solely attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner had unauthorizedly acted in debiting the amounts and crediting it to other accounts only to defraud the bank as well as the customers The acts of misconduct were discovered after substantial long length of time and the petitioner proceeded to refund the said amount to the bank. There is no allegations with regard to procedure undertaken by the respondents in conducting the said inquiry.Full opportunity was given to the petitioner.
9. In light of the above and specially looking to the fact that the petitioner being the bank employee had defrauded the bank and the doctrine of loss of confidence is clearly applicable in the present case. There is no infirmity in either the procedure or the order nor the punishment is said to be excessive and accordingly the petition being without merits is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.3.2023 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
