Bombay High Court
Jagdish R. Shringarpure vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors on 18 January, 2018
Bench: R.M. Borde
ssm 1 205-wp2915.03.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2915 OF 2003
Jagdish R. Shringarpure,
Laxmi Niwas - F-4, Subhash Road,
Vile Parle (E), Mumbai 400057. ....Petitioner.
Vs.
1 Bank of Baroda,
Baroda Corporate Centre,
Bandr - Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai 40051.
2 Chairman/Managing Director,
Bank of Baroda,
Baroda Corporate Centre,
Bandr - Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai - 40051.
3 The Executive Director,
(Appellate Authority),
Bank of Baroda
Baroda Corporate Centre,
Bandr - Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai 40051.
4 Union of India,
Income Tax Office,
Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg,
Marine Line,
Mumbai - 400 020. ....Respondents.
1/10
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:12:56 :::
ssm 2 205-wp2915.03.sxw
Mr. Sunil Dighe for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Sagar Seth and Mr. Netaji
Gawade i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
R.G. KETKAR, JJ.
DATE : 18 JANUARY 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.M. BORDE, J.):-
The Petitioner is assailing the order passed by the
Appellate Authority dated 5 March 2003, thereby modifying the order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 30 October 1999, in respect of
imposition of punishment during the Departmental Proceedings.
2 The Petitioner was the employee of Bank of Baroda
appointed in 1961 as a Clerk and was promoted as Chief Manager in
1990. He retired on attaining age of superannuation on 30 October
1999.
3 During the relevant period, the Petitioner was functioning
as Chief Manager at Thakurdwar Branch. It is alleged that while
functioning as a Chief Manager, he permitted opening of 19 Current
Accounts of various parties belonging to Dayabhai group. During the
ssm 3 205-wp2915.03.sxw
period of 1 September 1992 to 30 June 1993, the Thakurdwar Branch
collected 43731 instruments aggregating Rs.6,57,78,911/- through
the above accounts. The instruments collected by the branch headed
by the Petitioner for and on behalf of these Current Account holders
were third party crossed account payee refund orders/dividend/
interest/warrants favouring the companies/parties other than the
subject Account holders. Some of these instruments were reported to
have been stolen from the offices of the company and/or their
registered offices. The Petitioner is alleged to have authenticated some
of the credit vouchers pertaining to the above third party
instruments/transactions and some vouchers have been authenticated
by other officers of the branch as per the instructions of the Petitioner.
The branch received several claims from the genuine parties/payees of
the instruments, which are settled and some of the claims were yet to
be settled. The genuine claimants who had visited the branch with
complaints of non-receipt of refund orders were paid by the party in
the branch premises by the Banker's cheque taken out of cash
remitted/deposited, with the knowledge of the Petitioner. The
Petitioner did not bring this to the notice of the higher authority and
alleged to have intentionally withheld the information. As a
ssm 4 205-wp2915.03.sxw
consequence of the negligent and irregular functioning of the
Petitioner, the bank had to settle the claims to the extent of Rs.66.96
lakhs and the bank is further likely to suffer financial loss to the extent
of Rs.657/- lakhs or more. Considering this aspect, a departmental
inquiry was proposed against the Petitioner and following charges
were framed. Those charges are reproduced as under-
"1. He misused and abused his position as the Chief
Manager of the Branch.
2. He adopted such steps and took such action as were
derogatory, prejudicial, detrimental and injurious to
the interest of the Bank.
3. He knowingly and willfully violated the Bank's
rules/norms and prescribed procedures.
4. He did not discharge his duties with diligence and
took such actions which showed a lack of care,
caution or reasonable judgment or were grossly
negligent in nature.
5. In the performance of his official duties and/or in
exercise of powers conferred on him, he
unauthorisedly exercised his authority/powers.
6. He committed serious violation of duty, breach of
trust reposed in him by the bank.
7. His irregular actions have cause or are likely to cause
serious financial loss to the Bank.
8. He did acts unbecoming of a Bank officer."
ssm 5 205-wp2915.03.sxw
4 The Inquiry Officer has concluded that except the charge
Nos. 1 and 3, the other charges have been duly proved. The
Disciplinary Authority passed an order on the basis of the report of the
Inquiry Officer in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 5 (3)
read with Regulation 6 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees'
(Discipline and Appeals) Regulations 1976, imposing the penalty of
reduction by 5 stages in the time scale with effect from the date of
order and it is further directed that the period of suspension shall be
treated as period not spent on duty and not to be counted for
increment purpose. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal challenging
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30 October 1999.
The Appellate Authority after extending the hearing to the Petitioner
was pleased to allow the Petition partly and directed modification of
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, thereby imposing
penalty of reduction by 3 stages in the time scale and it was further
directed that the period of suspension be treated as period not
attended for the duty and not to be counted for increment purpose.
The order passed by the Appellate Authority is the subject matter of
challenge in the present Petition.
ssm 6 205-wp2915.03.sxw
5 In exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the scope of judicial review is restricted and a
writ petition challenging imposition of punishment in departmental
proceedings cannot be construed as an Appeal from the decision. The
powers are exercised to ensure that the individual receives fair
opportunity to defend and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
Authority reaches, is necessarily correct in the eyes of the Court.
What is required to be seen is whether the principles of natural justice
have been observed and the delinquent has fair opportunity to present
his case. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority based on
appreciation of facts, are not liable to be interfered on re-appreciation
of the evidence. The argument in respect of the adequacy of evidence
or reliability of the evidence is irrelevant and not liable to be canvased
before the High Court. In this context, it would be appropriate to
refer to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of B.C.
Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1 . In paragraph Nos. 12 and 13
of the Judgment, it is recorded as under-
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a
decision but a review of the manner in which the decision
1 (1995) 6 SCC 749
ssm 7 205-wp2915.03.sxw
is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that
the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure
that the conclusion which the authority reaches is
necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an
inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public
servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine
whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or
whether rules of natural justice are complied with.
Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some
evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold
inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a
finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be
based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of
Evidence Act nor proof of fact or evidence as defined
therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the
authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives
support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to
hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge.
The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does
not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence
and to arrive at its own independent findings on the
evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the
authority held the proceedings against the delinquent
officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural
justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the
mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding
reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no
reasonable person would have never reached, the
Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the
finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate
to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of
facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority
has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the
nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict
proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are
not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of
ssm 8 205-wp2915.03.sxw
evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the
Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4
SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) I LLJ 38 ,] this
Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon
consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary
authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the
face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of
certiorari could be issued."
6 So far as the imposition of punishment is concerned, it has
been ruled in the aforesaid judgment that the punishing authority has
the power and jurisdiction to impose the punishment and it would not
be open for the High Court to cause a review of the order directing the
imposition of punishment in exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
7 The Court has no jurisdiction, if the findings prima facie
made out a case of misconduct, to direct the punishing authority to
reconsider the order directing the imposition of penalty. This view has
been adopted in the matter of Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur
which has been reaffirmed in the Judgment of B.C.Chaturvedi
(Supra).
2 (1972) 4 SCC 618
ssm 9 205-wp2915.03.sxw
8 In the context of law laid down by the Supreme Court as
referred to above, if the case in hand is considered, we do not find any
scope for causing interference. It has not been demonstrated that the
Petitioner has been denied the fair opportunity to defend his case.
The process adopted by the Inquiry Officer in conducting the inquiry
proceedings, is not demonstrated to have been vitiated for any reason.
The process of inquiry is fair and transparent. The Petitioner has been
extended an opportunity of hearing and to defend his case.
Considering the charges levelled against the Petitioner, as well as, on
perusal of the report of inquiry and the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, we are of
considered opinion that charge levelled against the petitioner is fully
established and that he has been given fair opportunity to defend. The
charges levelled against the Petitioner are quiet serious in nature. A
finding has been recorded in unequivocal terms that the employee has
committed breach of trust reposed on him by the bank. In the
banking industry, the trust reposed on the employee is of utmost
importance and it is irrelevant as to how much monetary loss is
occasioned to the bank, however what is relevant is whether the
employer repose faith in the employee.
ssm 10 205-wp2915.03.sxw
9 Considering the material placed before us, and after
hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, we are
convinced that in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for.
10 The Writ Petition is thus, dismissed. Rule discharged.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.G. KETKAR, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)
