Deepaksing Premchand Rajput vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3104 Bom

                                       1        WP 507 of 2004

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          Writ Petition No. 507 of 2004


     *       Deepaksing s/o Premchand Rajput,
             Age 31 years,
             Occupation : Nil,
             R/o 13, Kasturinagar, Bhusaval,
             District Jalgaon.                ..             Petitioner.

                      Versus

     1)      Bank of Baroda,
             Through its Chairman and
             Managing Director, Central Office,
             Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai.

     2)      The Deputy General Manager,
             Maharashtra & Goa
             Appellate Authority,
             Bank of Baroda,
             Zonal Office, Sharda Centre,
             2nd Floor,11/1 Khilare Path,
             Erandavane, Pune 411 004.

     3)      The Assistant General Manager
             (Nagpur),
             Disciplinary Authority,
             Bank of Baroda,
             Regional Office, Dharampeth,
             Nagpur - 440 010.            .. Respondents.

                                       ----

     Shri. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for petitioner.

     Shri. S.P. Karkare, Advocate, holding for Shri. P.K. Joshi,
     Advocate, for respondent No.3.

                                       ----




::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2017 00:19:25 :::
                                            2         WP 507 of 2004

                                   Coram:      T.V. NALAWADE &
                                               SANGITRAO S PATIL, JJ.

                                   Date:       13 June 2017.

     JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.) :

1) The present petition is filed to challenge the

order dated 29-8-2003 made by the Disciplinary Authority,

Assistant General Manager (Nagpur), Bank of Baroda

against the petitioner in departmental enquiry held by the

bank. The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty and

the disciplinary authority has accepted the report and has

made order of removal of the petitioner from service. As

per the procedure, administrative appeal is available and

such appeal was preferred. The appeal is also dismissed.

Both sides are heard.

2) The petitioner was working as Cashier-cum-

Clerk in Bank of Baroda, Branch Bambrud. Complaints

were received against the petitioner involving following

allegations:-

     (1)     He      created      false   record   in     respect        of    loan
             transactions          of at least three borrowers like Mrs.
             Sarubai           Baviskar, Murlidhar Nikam and Jagan





                                        3       WP 507 of 2004

             Nhavi. There was allegation that by creating                   this

false record he misappropriated the money which was to be given to these debtors and as the debtors were deceived, they did not repay the loan and that way loss was caused to the bank;

(2) He did not purchase insurance policy in respect of the loan transactions, milch cattle, of requisite period and thereby he caused loss to the bank;

(3) He gave threats to the Branch Manager of Bambrud to cause him physical harm and by giving such threats he was disturbing the functioning of this branch of the bank; and,

(4) He was not punctual in discharging his duty and he was not promptly and properly discharging his duties.

3) The allegations of creation of false record of

loan transactions and causing loss to the bank were made

as these acts were done by him when he was working as a

member of the committee created to implement the

Government scheme of self-employment. The scheme

involved giving of loan of Rs.45,000/- to each person but

the amount was not to be actually handed over to the

debtor and by using this amount, three Jersey cows were

4 WP 507 of 2004

to be purchased for the debtor. Two cows were to be given

immediately and the third cow was to be given after six

months. These cows were to be insured with one

insurance company for the period of three years. In this

committee there were in all four members like the

petitioner, Veterinary Doctor of Government hospital, a

member of the Marketing Committee from where the cows

were to be purchased and a person of insurance company

with which the cattle were to be insured. The petitioner

was expected to discharge his duty in respect of six such

transactions. Complaints were received in respect of three

transactions. Further, as per the record, in six

transactions when two cows were to be given, only one

cow was given. These debtors did not repay the amount

and the transactions were made N.P.A.

4) During enquiry which was made as preliminary

enquiry it was noticed that Mrs. Sarubai and Murlidhar

were given only one cow. Such information was supplied

by them and when inspection and inquiry was done it was

released that only one cow was supplied. The third debtor

Jagan informed that one Jersey cow and one Desi cow

5 WP 507 of 2004

were supplied to him but there was no ear tag to the Desi

cow which was purchased through loan transaction.

Further, the price of Desi cow which was informed by

Jagan was much less than the price of the Jersey cow and

this amount also was misappropriated if really Desi cow

was purchased. There was no corresponding record about

Desi cow. Enquiry was made into other aforesaid

allegations and substance was found in these and the

other allegations also and accordingly charge-sheet was

prepared and show cause notice was served on the

petitioner. The petitioner filed reply and he denied

everything. He tried to put blame on the Branch Manager.

5) The petitioner was allowed to appoint

representative through his union. Presenting Officer was

appointed by the bank and he produced material before

the Enquiry Officer for proving the aforesaid charges.

Opportunity was given to the petitioner to give his own

evidence and to have his say on the evidence given by the

bank. The report of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to

the petitioner and on it also his say was called and

opportunity was given to him to have his say on the point

6 WP 507 of 2004

of penalty. Thus, necessary procedure was followed.

6) In the present proceeding, the learned counsel

for petitioner argued on the circumstances as follows :-

(i) The report of verification which was expected from the Branch Manager was not produced even when application was moved by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer;

(ii) The record with regard to purchase of milch cattle and of insurance and also the record created by the Veterinary Doctor was not properly appreciated;

(iii) The penalty imposed was not proportionate; and,

(iv) Action ought to have been taken against the Branch Manager also.

7) So far as the first ground is concerned, the

record shows that the Branch Manager was examined and

he submitted before the Enquiry Officer that no such

report of verification of the things was prepared by him.

The evidence given by the Branch Manager shows that

due to shortage of staff the entire matter was entrusted

7 WP 507 of 2004

to the petitioner. When the Branch Manager himself was

examined it can be said that absence of record of

verification by the Branch Manager could not have made

much difference in the result of the enquiry. Thus, there is

no force in the first ground.

8) The contention of the petitioner that there was

relevant record like purchase receipts prepared in

A.P.M.C., the record of insurance company etc. and this

record was sufficient to prove that the milch cattle were

purchased is also not acceptable. Material is produced to

show that the so called vendor came forward and he

submitted that nobody had approached him for sale of

milch cattle and the record which was available with the

bank in respect of purchase of milch cows like receipts

was not prepared by him. His place of residence is

different than which is shown on the receipts. It needs to

be observed that from the record it can be said that other

members of the committee had helped the petitioner in

creation of false record and thus the man from A.P.M.C.,

Veterinary Doctor and the man from insurance company

were involved in the fraud. Only due to this, the petitioner

8 WP 507 of 2004

could misappropriate the amount in respect of one cow

which was to be supplied to each of the six debtors. The

record and the submissions made show that Departments

of other members of the committee had taken appropriate

action against them also. Thus, it cannot be said that the

record was genuine and correct. The material on the

record is sufficient to establish for the purpose of enquiry

that false record was created in respect of one cow in

respect of each debtor by the petitioner. He was the

person who was expected to purchase the cows and

supply them to the debtors and everything was in his

hands.

9) There is not only the aforesaid evidence but

there are many other circumstances. The payment of the

loan amount was not to be made to the debtor and it was

to be made to the vendor of the milch cattle. The material

on record and particularly the evidence of the Branch

Manager and the cheques show that account payee

cheques were not given to the vendor and by using bearer

cheques the amount was shown to be paid. Even the

particulars of the currency notes given for encashing the

9 WP 507 of 2004

cheques were not given as per the duty list and as per the

orders given by the Branch Manager. It is the petitioner

who made the payment and it can be said that he did not

make payment to the vendor and he himself collected the

cheque amount. These circumstances support the charge.

10) Most important of all is the evidence of the

debtors. They are villagers, illiterate persons and they

have given evidence that they were deceived by the

petitioner by saying that second cow will be given after

few days. Their signatures or thumb impressions were

obtained on the record but no second cow was supplied to

them and the record of purchase also shows that second

cow was not at all purchased for each debtor. This

material is more than sufficient to prove the charges in

respect of the loan transactions. As the second cow was

not supplied, the debtors did not repay the loan amount

and the transactions were made N.P.A. Thus loss was

caused to the bank in respect of these transactions.

11) Evidence is given by the Branch Manager on

the overall conduct of the petitioner. There is also other

10 WP 507 of 2004

material showing that the petitioner was behaving

arrogantly and he was disobeying orders of the superiors.

By giving threats he was avoiding to discharge the duty

and on occasions he had turned up to the bank at 4.00

p.m., very late. Lame excuses were not accepted and

record of late coming was created. The petitioner dared

to give threats to the superior of causing physical harm

and immediately reports were given by the Branch

Manager to his immediate superior. That record was

already created and so it cannot be said that these

allegations were afterthought in nature. Thus there is

more than sufficient material to establish that the

petitioner was misbehaving with the superiors, he was not

discharging the duty properly and he was not punctual.

12) To rebut the available material there is nothing

with the petitioner. It is noticed that whenever there are

such schemes, poor people are deceived by the persons

from bank like the present petitioner. Such instances

cannot be taken lightly as damage is caused to the image

of the bank and to the purpose of Government schemes.

Unless stern action is taken against such persons, such

11 WP 507 of 2004

criminal minded persons do not realize that they would

loose service if they indulge into such activities.

13) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance on some observations made by the Apex Court in

the case reported as (2010)2 SCC 772 (State of U.P. v.

Saroj Kumar Sinha). On the basis of the observations

made, the learned counsel submitted that some charges

were not informed to the petitioner and so the punishment

cannot sustain in law. This submission is not at all

acceptable. It appears that some points were segregated

by the Enquiry Officer while preparing his report on the

basis of the contents of the charge. It cannot be said that

the points considered by the Enquiry Officer were not part

of the charge-sheet. Thus there is no force in this

contention. So the case cited supra is of no help to the

petitioner.

14) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance on another case reported as (1998)6 SCC 651

(State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal) and submitted that some

documents were not supplied to him and due to that

punishment imposed on him cannot sustain in law. It was

12 WP 507 of 2004

submitted that complaints filed by the debtors were not

supplied to him. It is not the case of the petitioner that

any application was given in that regard. Further

complaints are duly proved. Submission was made in

respect of verification report which was to be prepared by

the Branch Manager. This point is already dealt with.

Thus there is no force in this contention also and this

case is of no help to the petitioner.

15) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance on one more case reported as (2013)3 SCC 73

(Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P.) . It was submitted that to

the other members of the committee such punishment was

not given by their employer and so the punishment given

to the petitioner is not proportionate. The facts of the

reported case were different. It appears that in the

present matter everything was to be done by the

petitioner. His employer is expected to take decision on

the basis of material available against the petitioner and

so the matter of the present petitioner cannot be

compared with other members of the committee and it

cannot be said that the punishment is not proportionate to

13 WP 507 of 2004

the charges proved.

16) The learned counsel for the respondent bank

placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex

Court in the case reported as AIR 2000 SC 3129 (Janatha

Bazar v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangh). In this

case, the Apex Court has held that when there is charge of

misappropriation lenient view is not expected as such

persons do not deserve sympathy and such persons can

be removed from service. There cannot be dispute over

this proposition. Corruption and instances of

misappropriation by persons like present petitioner are

on increase and it is unfortunate that unnecessary lenient

view is taken in favour of such persons. Such lenient view

also is responsible for increasing such instances. This

Court holds that lenient view cannot be taken in favour of

the present petitioner. As there are no merits in the

present petition, the petition stands dismissed. Rule

discharged.

             Sd/-                                    Sd/-
     (SANGITRAO S PATIL, J.)                 (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)


     rsl