Dhananjay Deokumar Guldekar ... vs The G.M.Union Bank Of India ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5834 Bom

                                  1
                                                              wp2210.02.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                    Writ Petition No.2210 of 2002

  Dhananjay s/o Deokumar Guldekar,
  Aged about 48 years,
  Occupation - Nil,
  R/o Opposite Principal Meher's
  House, Kalyan Nagar,
  Amravati.                                          ... Petitioner

       Versus

  1. The General Manager
     (Personal),
     Union Bank of India,
     Central Office,
     Mumbai.

  2. The Assistant General Manager,
     Union Bank of India,
     Pune.

  3. The Regional Manager,
     Union Bank of India,
     Nagpur.                                         ...Respondents



  Shri S. Sanyal, Advocate for Petitioner.
  Shri   M.G.   Bhangde,   Senior   Advocate,   assisted   by   Shri   Tapadia, 
  Advocate for Respondents.


                Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Manish Pitale, JJ.

                Dated  : 10    August, 2017
                            th
                                            






                                                                    wp2210.02.odt

   Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :

1. The petitioner, working as Branch Manager and posted at

Warud, was compulsorily retired from service by way of punishment,

on 10-6-1999 after holding him guilty of two charges levelled against

him. The order of compulsory retirement was the subject-matter of

challenge in appeal and thereafter in revision. The Appellate

Authority not only concurred with the findings recorded by the

Disciplinary Authority on Charge No.1, but also held the petitioner

guilty of Charge No.2. The Revisional Authority concurs with it, and

thus this petition is preferred challenging all those orders.

2. Two charges levelled against the petitioner on

19-9-1998 are as under :

1. Failure to discharge the duties with honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence.

2. Acting in a manner unbecoming of Bank Officer.

3. It was alleged against the petitioner in the Articles of Charge

as under :

wp2210.02.odt

" Shri Guldekar misused his official position and used his personal vehicle for inward cash remittance from Amravati to Warud. Further he claimed and acceped taxi charges of Rs.600/- per trip by submitting receipt of local travel agents M/s. Sagar Travels and Communication, Warud. This way he claimed & total of Rs.24,000/- as Taxi charges from the Bank. It is also understood that Shri Guldekar instead of staying at his place of posting was staying at Amravati, for which no prior permission has been obtained by him from his superiors."

4. The petitioner in his reply to the Articles of Charge accepted

that on quite a few occasions, he used his own vehicle for cash

remittance particularly when the travel agency did not make available

its taxi for it. He further accepted that he used his own vehicle

without obtaining prior approval of the Regional Office and expressed

his regrets for the same. He took the stand that approximately 1 to 2

times in a month, he used his own vehicle. The first charge was that

the petitioner has misused his official position by using his personal

vehicle for cash remittance from Amravati to Warud, and the second

charge was that he was not staying at Warud, but was at Amravati.

wp2210.02.odt

5. Shri M.G. Bhangde, the learned Senior Advocate, assisted by

Shri Tapadia, Advocate, for the respondents, invited our attention to

the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which are reproduced

below :

"... The receipts reveal that he himself has accepted cash on 22 occasions out of 40 occasions. Receipts also reveal that on 2 occasions, the amount has been paid to Sagar Travels & Communications, but, however, receipts of Sagar Travels were produced for all occasions. Since there were 5 other officers working at Warud branch, the reasons putforth by Shri Guldekar for going himself all the time for remittance at Amravati is not acceptable.

The overall evidence recorded reveal that Shri Guldekar, was staying at Warud but his family was residing at Amravati. He has used his personal vehicle for cash remittance, as per necessity and requirement of Warud Branch without obtaining permission from the competent authority. Therefore, he himself remained away from the branch during working hours for about 7-8 hours for cash remittance from Amravati. He therefore, used to stay alongwith his family at Amravati and asked for the vehicle for cash remittance through Daftary, for which he has not claimed diem allowance for the cash remittance from Amravati where his family actual resides. He has accepted Rs.600/- per trip through cash vouchers and out of 40 occasions, only on 2 occasions, the amount was paid to Sagar Travels. He, however, recklessly submitted receipt of Sagar Travels for all the occasions for using vehicle of two types i.e. Mh 27 A 6238 and Mh 27 a 7567, though he has used his personal vehicle on many occasions. Shr Guldekar, has thus, misutilised his position as Branch Manager.

MW1, however, in his cross examination replied to the question put by the defence that he has not doubt about the honesty and integrity of CSO, as alleged in the articles of

wp2210.02.odt

charge. I therefore, do not hold Shri Guldekar, guilty of allegations of failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity considering the following."

Shri Bhangde submits that the Disciplinary Authority concurred with

these findings of the Enquiry Officer and it is held that the petitioner

misused his official position by using his personal vehicle for cash

remittance from Amravati to Warud without prior permission of the

competent authority and he personally used cash remittance for

visiting Amravati. He further submits that the petitioner claimed and

accepted the taxi charges of Rs.600/- per trip on 22 occasions.

6. Shri Sanyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged

that the respondents have failed to take into consideration the service

rendered by the petitioner to the respondent-Bank. He submits that

the business of the Bank and the profits urged enormously increased

during his posting at Warud Branch and that the Appellate Authority

did not provide any opportunity to the petitioner to record the positive

findings on the second charge. He further submits that the past

unblemished service of the petitioner has not been taken into

consideration while passing an order of compulsory retirement.

wp2210.02.odt

7. Shri Sanyal could not point out to us any provision contained

in the rules of the Bank requiring the past service to be taken into

consideration while imposing the punishment on the basis of the

findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty

of the charges levelled against him. We find that the findings

recorded by the Authorities below are based upon the evidence

available on record, and the dishonesty on the part of the petitioner in

claiming the taxi charges of Rs.600/- per trip, particularly when he

used his own vehicle for the purposes of cash remittance and used to

produce the bills of travel agency are serious findings, and in such

circumstances we do not find that the punishment imposed is in any

manner disproportionate to the act of misconduct proved against the

petitioner.

8. In the result, we do not find any substance in this petition.

The same is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.

                         JUDGE.                            JUDGE.
   Lanjewar