D.S. Bindra vs Punjab & Sind Bank
1998 Latest Caselaw 947 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner, who was working as Manager of the Punjab & Sind Bank, Ludhiana, was compulsorily retired and that is under challenge. For the purpose of appreciating the questions raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to notice a few relevant facts.

2. On the 12th of October, 1993, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that it was contemplated to initiate disciplinary action.

3. On the 5th of November, 1993, a charge-sheet was issued to him. The articles of charge and the statement of allegations are as under:-

"ARTICLES OF CHARGE

That Shri D.S.Bindra, Manager(U/S) during his tenure at B/O Sunet Committed fraudulent irregularities as explained in the statement of allegations (Annexure-II).

Therefore, Shri D.S.Bindra is charged as under:-

1). That he has failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank.

2). That he has failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence.

3). That he acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer.

4). That he has acted otherwise than in his best judgement.

That the above said acts of Shri D.S.Bindra are acts of misconduct as per Regulations 3.1, 3.3 of Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1981 especially as read with Regulation-24 of the said regulations."

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS

1). That Shri D.S.Bindra while working as Branch Incharge, Sunet allowed opening of S.B. A/c No.7184 on 27.09.93 in the name of Shri Joginder Singh S/o Shri Iqbal Singh resident of 43-A, Professor Colony, Agar Nagar, Ludhiana & Committed the following irregularities:-

i). The Account was allowed to be opened without obtaining A/c opening form on 27.09.93 itself.

ii) Introduction in the A/c taken of an S.B.Account (No.3220) holder, who has got his account closed since 20.11.87.

iii) The signatures of introducer's are entirely different than the record in the branch and moreover, he denied having introduced any of the account.

iv) Cheque book issued to the party prior to the opening of account i.e. on 26.09.93 by getting it issued himself by Mr.Bindra.

v) Given address of the party is wrong, fictitious and is reportedly be address of a plot in the name of Mr.Mohinder Pal Singh, Ex-Manager of the Bank.

2) That on 08.10.93 Shri D.S.Bindra allowed the transfer of FDR No.102134 dated 28.09.93 of Rs.1 lac to S.B.A/c No.7184 fraudulently by altering the amount in figure to 11 lacs on FDR itself. He also altered the amount of said FDR in:

i) FDR lager sheet.

ii) Transfer scroll dated 08.10.93.

3) That on 09.10.93, Shri D.S.Bindra allowed the cash payment of Rs.10 lacs in S.B. A/c No.7184, vide cheque No.593825 dated 09.10.93, against the fraudulent credit entry of Rs.11 lacs dated 08.10.93, with the following irregularities:

i) Allowed the withdrawal of cash to the party directly from the Currency Chest and without debiting the account of party, prior to the release of payment.

ii) No cash movement recorded in cash movement register of the branch.

iii) After paying the cash to the party outside the bank premises, he got the entries made to relative bank books, personally by moving from one counter to another and even the entry in the cash detail book made by the Cashier bearing the remarks of Cashier as "through Mgr. D.S.Bindra".

iv) No security measures observed while the movement of cash of Rs.10 lacs."

4. The petitioner was granted ten days time to file his statement of defense. The petitioner had applied for extension of time. On the 17th of January, 1994, the Assistant Manager (Disciplinary Authority) directed the petitioner to submit the statement of defense. Immediately on receipt of the letter dated the 17th of January, 1994, on the 7th of February, 1994 the petitioner submitted his statement of defense. The statement of defense reads as under:-

"With reference to your letter dated 17-01-94 (read on 31-01-94), I wish to submit as under regarding the allegations levelled against me. I deny the charges and submit as under:

1. i) The account was opened on 27-09-93 after obtaining proper account opening form which is still lying in Bank record.

ii) Introducer's signatures were verified by the undersigned from the account opening form/specimen signatures of saving account NO.3229 which was very much in the signature file containing account opening forms of running accounts. The undersigned never knew that account is closed because account opening form lying in the record of running accounts. Moreover the introducer was also having a loan account with the branch.

iii) The signature of the introducer tally with those at the record of the branch. I confirm having verified the signature of the introducer from the specimen signature card placed on record. Further he might be denied just to avoid his statement after the incident.

iv) 26th Sept 1993 was Sunday so issuing of cheque book on that day is not possible, however the cheque book issued by me by calling the same in my cabin and issued by myself as normally done in the case of influences customers.

v) There is no practice to check the residential address of the saving bank accounts holders.

2. I very humbly deny the charge of having altered the amount in figure from rupees one lac to eleven lacs on FDR itself. It will not be out of place to mention here that the amount in figure on FDR was written in such a way that in the first look it was giving the impression that it is rupees eleven lacs. The party came to my cabin when 5-6 other parties were also sitting and I was awfully busy as I was also handling FDR seat as the concern officer was on leave. The party expressed the urgent need of rupees one lack to be withdrawn after getting the captioned FDR credited to his saving bank account. I called the saving bank account incharge and asked him to make the payment of rupees one lack and handed over the cheque to him. When he told me that the balance in the saving bank account of the party was insufficient, I conveyed him that the proceeds of FDR of captioned party amounting rupees eleven lack are to be credited in the saving bank account, as I took the impression that the amount of the FDR is rupees 11 lack but I could not read the complete FDR due to the rush of work and mental strains due to the severe attack on the eyes on my father on that very day in the morning. Due to over burden of the work and in ill-health of my father on 8-10-93 I could not complete the work of FDR seat and incidently the captioned FDR could not be dealt with because more than 20 FDR either issued or paid on that day and officer concerned was on leave.

In the afternoon 9-10-93 I was releasing the vouchers and FDRs dated 8-10-93 when I dealt with this FDR, I realised the mistake because by that time the payment of 10 lacks had also been made to the party. I immediately rush to the place of residence of the party, as given on the account opening form and found to my utter surprise that it was a plot. I also tried to locate the introducer in the given address but by that time he has shifted his residence. Then I came to the branch and found myself helpless. My scenses stopped working and in the absent state of mind, I unintentionally altered the amount in the FDR ledger in the state of nervousness. But it was done only after the payment was made and the party was not traceable.

However soon after the mistake came to light, I started making strenuous efforts and contacted my very near relatives and friends, some of which are very rich (multimillion), manage to deposit the amount of overpayment make to the party, which I was returning to them out of the sale proceeds of the house of my father. (EX DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER of this bank) in which we are living situated at B.R.S. Nagar, Ludhiana. The whole matter was brought to your kind notice and the amount has been deposited on 12-10-93.

3. Payment from SB A/c No.7184 has been allowed by the concerning incharge and not by me on 9-10-93, and also the entry of rupee 11 lack not credited by me at all.

i) The party expressed an urgent need of the money. It was decided to make the payment of 10 lack to the party directly from currency chest because of the following reasons:

a) It was a Saturday and it was not possible to get the delivery of cash rupees 10 lack at branch office Sunet by currency chest as it would have required the guard from ITBP (because amount was over rupees 5 lacks) and it could not have been arranged on that day. Under the circumstances we were compelled to make the payment to the party directly from the currency chest, moreover this was not the first chance. Such heavy payments had been made to the parties directly from C/chest in the past also, because if cash required more than 5 lac from C/chest, ITBP has to be arranged and for that the C/chest submits a letter to the ITBP headquarters and they give some next date for accompanying the cash and so that to provide prompt customer service, this method is adopted as before also.

ii) Payment have been made to the party directly from C/chest so no cash movement recorded in cash movement register but recorded in cash book of the branch.

iii) Entries made to the relative bank books by the concerning incharges.

Although no misconduct has been committed by the undersigned intentionally and the over paid amount has been fully deposited very soon and bank has suffered no financial loss, even then I own the moral responsibility of the system and procedural lapses committed by the branch which I was handling. I humbly request you to exonerate me from the charges levelled against me in the said charge-sheet and revoke my suspension order as I have already suffered a big financial loss. I am still making all out efforts to locate the party and to recover my amount from him.

I may mention that I have served the bank for more than 21 years and that too to the entire satisfaction of my seniors and superiors. I have independently handled 3 urban branches and have achieved the given targets and received about 6 appreciation letters for my achievements. I always served my benign institution with full integrity, honesty and devotion to duty as inspired by my worthy father (SR.J.S.BINDRA) who retired from the bank as Deputy General Manager. My elder brother, Sr.Surjit Singh Bindra, is serving in the bank in the capacity of Senior Manager. My other brother, Sr.S.P.S.Bindra, was also in the bank in the capacity of Manager and unfortunately died very recently (that is on 27-12-93).

I have seen the bank when it had very few branches and I had contributed to its development along with my other members of the family.

I have got the amount deposited in the bank and bank has suffered no financial loss at all even then I could not reconcile myself due to my personal loss. Keeping in view my domestic problems, I have tendered my resignation. I request you to accept the resignation."

5. On the 9th of April, 1994, an Inquiry Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority. On the 6th of June, 1994, the inquiry was held. The minutes of the inquiry proceedings would read as under:-

"In terms of charge-sheet dt.5.11.93 levelled against Shri D.S.Bindra U/s Manager, B.O.Sunet, regular proceedings started after giving the notice to all the concerned. The following officials were present:-

1. K.S.Sadar Chief Manager B.O. Saban Bazar LDN (E.O.)

2. Sh.T.P.S.Gujral Manager Z.O.LDH. (P.O)

3. Sh.D.S.Bindra - Manager U/S B.O.Sunet (C.S.O.)

The enquiry officer asked the C.S.O. whether he has gone through the charge-sheet thoroughly and he understood all the charges levelled against him in terms of charge-sheet referred above. The C.S.O. confirmed having understood the charges. The C.S.O. confessed his mistake and stated that mistakes were committed by him because of negligence and he accepted the charges levelled against him as stated in the charge-sheet dated 5.11.93. The C.S.O. has given a letter wherein he has requested to forward his letter to disciplinary authority for sympathetic view of the matter because the mistakes were committed by him for the reasons beyond his control.

In view of the confession of the C.S.O. the enquiry is being concluded."

6. On the same day, the petitioner sent a communication through the Inquiry Officer to the disciplinary authority stating:

"I confirm having committed the misconduct as stated in charge-sheet dated 5.11.1993, but, Sir, the mistake has been committed due to the reasons/circumstances beyond my control as fully explained in my letter dated 5/7-2-94, which has already been placed on bank record.

Further, I assure you, Sir, that Bank has not suffered any loss due to my above stated negligence as I have suffered the loss and deposited the money in question by disposing of my parental property. You are requested to exonerate me."

7. On the 26th of August, 1994, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner. The order reads as under:-

"Whereas disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Shri D.S.Bindra (C.S.O.) Manager U/S B.O.Sunet on account of charges levelled against him vide Article of charges and statement of allegation dated 5.11.93. He was advised to submit his statement of defense within 10days of receipt of article of charges and statement of allegation dated 5.11.93. He did submit reply dated 7.2.94 which was not found to be satisfactory. Departmental enquiry was initiated against him to give an opportunity to defend himself vide letter dated 9.4.1994.

Shri Kirpal Singh Sadar, Chief Manager B.O. Saban Bazar Ldh was appointed as Inquiry Authority and Shri T.P.S.Gujral, Manager Z.O. Ldh. as Presenting Officer. Shri Kirpal Singh Sadar, Inquiry Authority, has since submitted his report thereby attaching the written statement dated 6.6.94 of Shri D.S.Bindra (C.S.O.) where in he has confessed his mistake as per the charges levelled against him in terms of charge-sheet dated 5.11.93.

After thoroughly examining and considering the gravity of misconduct, aggravating and extenuating circumstances, past record of the C.S.O. Shri D.S.Bindra, I am of the considered opinion that punishment of compulsory retirement from Bank service shall meet the end of justice. As such I hereby impose the punishment as above as per clause 4 (f) of Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1981 upon Shri D.S.Bindra, Manager.

The Bank also reserve the right to recover the loss caused to the Bank by Shri D.S.Bindra Manager from him."

8. On the 16th of December, 1994, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. On the 24th of February, 1995, the appellate authority concurring with the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the appeal. The order reads as under:-

"This is an order in the matter of appeal dated 16.12.1994 preferred by Shri D.S.Bindra against the orders dated 26.8.1994 of the Disciplinary Authority, Zonal Manager, Ludhiana.

Shri D.S.Bindra was served with a charge-sheet dated 5.11.1993. He had submitted his reply dated 7.2.1994, towards this charge-sheet. Finding the reply inadequate, a departmental enquiry was constituted and based on the findings of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority had awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement from Bank's service as per clause 4(f) of Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981.

Shri D.S.Bindra, has preferred this appeal which is placed before me. I have perused the case record available with me. From the records it is clear that the appellant had confessed having committed the misconduct as mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 5.11.1993. He has again reiterated the same in the appeal also.

I agree with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal of Shri D.S.Bindra is as such rejected."

9. On the 19th of April, 1995, the petitioner filed the review petition before the General Manager, Head of Personnel.

10. On the 20th of July, 1995, the Reviewing Authority (General Manager) dismissed the review petition holding that:

"I refer to your application dated 19.4.1995 whereby you have requested for review of your case. The review petition dated 19.4.1995 was placed before me along with other relevant records of the case.

On perusal of records, I find that in the recordings dated 6.6.1994 of the proceedings of departmental enquiry conducted in the matter of charge-sheet dated 5.11.1993, it has been clearly mentioned that the proceedings were being closed based on the confession letter dated 6.6.1994 submitted by you. The order sheet was duly signed by you along with E.O. & P.O.

Moreover, I find that the punishment awarded commensurate with the velocity of the misconduct committed. As such, I find no reason to interfere with the punishment already awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 26.8.94 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.2.1995."

11. Thereupon, the petitioner instituted this writ petition on the 30th of April, 1996.

12. When the matter came up before this Court on the 21st of August, 1997, this Court passed the following order.

"Mr.Subramanim has taken three points to challenge the impugned order, namely, (1) enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner; (2) no show cause notice was given and finally (3) his appeal and review had been dismissed without affording him an opportunity of personal hearing. Before the matter is taken up on merits, I deem it proper that the Appellate Authority should give personal hearing to the petitioner and hear his case on merits. Let this be done within four weeks. The Appellate Authority will fix the date and time and communicate the same to the petitioner and give reasoned order."

13. In obedience to the order passed by this Court, on the 24th of January, 1998 the appellate authority passed the following order:

"WHEREAS Shri D.S.Bindra, Ex.Manager was awarded major penalty of "compulsory retirement" from the Bank vide order dated 26.8.94 in the matter of charge-sheet dated 5.11.93. His appeal dated 16.12.94 was rejected vide order dated 24.2.1995 and review order dated 20.7.95 also confirmed the order dated 26.8.94 of Disciplinary Authority.

Shri D.S.Bindra was Branch Incharge at Sunet, Distt. Ludhiana and permitted opening of SB A/c No.7184 on 27.9.93 in the name of Shri Joginder Singh S/o Shri Iqbal Singh, R/o 43 A, Professor Colony, Agar Nagar, Ludhiana without obtaining a/c opening form on 27.9.93 itself and without proper introduction. The address of the a/c holder was wrong and fictitious. Shri D.S.Bindra allowed transfer of FDR No.102134 dated 28.9.93 of rupees one lac to SB a/c No.7134 and altered the amount to Rs.11 lac and allowed cash payment of Rs.10 lac from same a/c and made payment directly from currency cheats and got the entries made in relative bank books.

Departmental Inquiry was ordered and Shri D.S.Bindra made a confession before the Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 6.6.1994 that he committed the misconduct as stated in the charge-sheet dated 5.11.1993

In terms of the directions of Hon'ble High Court, Shri D.S.Bindra was given a personal hearing on 16.9.1997 and 10.10.1997. Mainly, he raised the following points:

1. No malafides were involved regarding the withdrawal of amount from said a/c.

2. Due to pressure of being put behind bars, he deposited the amount involved by selling his parental property.

3. He admitted the mistake on being given assurance that minor penalty of withholding two increments shall be given.

4. The penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed under the influence of Vigilance Deptt.

5. No documents for proving charges were given and Enquiry Officer wrongly concluded him guilty.

6. He has requested to reinstate him in bank's service as compassionate grounds as he has to support his three daughters."

I have gone through the records and find that record does not support the contentions raised by Shri D.S.Bindra. He voluntarily confessed before the Inquiry Officer on 6.6.94 that he committed misconduct. I cannot ignore the fraudulent conduct on his part. As far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the Disciplinary Authority consulted the Vigilance Deptt. but it cannot be construed as pressure on the Disciplinary Authority. Shri D.S.Bindra never raised the issue of alleged assurance that only minor penalty of withholding two increment shall be given, in his appeal dated 16.12.1994 and review petition dated 19.4.1995. It is an afterthought and I do not find any material to support this suggestion. Shri D.S.Bindra admitted the misconduct during the enquiry proceedings dated 6.6.1994 and also gave a letter dated 6.6.1994 confirming that the said misconduct was committed by him. A copy of the proceedings dated 6.6.94 duly signed by Shri D.S.Bindra was provided to him. I do not find any merits in the contentions raised by Shri Bindra during the personal hearing given to him on 16.9.1997 and 10.10.97 and do not think that it is appropriate to interfere with the punishment Order dated 26.8.94 or Appellate Order dated 24.2.1995."

14. Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted:

1. that the disciplinary authority had passed the order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement at the instance of an authority which is not competent to give any direction to the Disciplinary Authority when the Disciplinary Authority had proposed only a lesser punishment of stoppage of increments;

2. that no personal hearing was given by the appellate authority;

3. that no inquiry was conducted to find out the guilt of the petitioner and there was no confession by the petitioner of any offence;

4. that the punishment imposed is out of all proportion to the charges levelled against the petitioner in the light of the view of the disciplinary authority that there was no financial loss to the bank.

15. Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the conduct of the petitioner in depositing the sum of Rs.11 lakhs immediately on being accused of charges should have been taken into account in coming to the conclusion about the punishment. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in "Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi Vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal & Another", and "State Bank of India & Others Vs. D.C.Aggarwal & Another", . The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, submitted that the Bank had not acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order impugned is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

16. Mr.Jagat Arora, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner was guilty of serious lapses of his duty as a Manager of the Bank and on being apprehended, he confessed to his guilt and as a man holding the post of a Manager would definitely know what are his duties and what he had really done, and the punishment of compulsory retirement had been imposed taking into account all relevant factors in the case. The Bank decided that an officer like the petitioner cannot any longer be trusted, and therefore, dispensed with his services. Mr.Jagat Arora, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was given full opportunity. Having regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner and the admission by the petitioner, the imposition of punishment is justified in law.

17. Meeting the charge that the Disciplinary Authority had acted on the direction of Vigilance Department and, therefore, the decision taken by the disciplinary authority vitiated, Mr.Jagat Arora, the learned counsel for the respondents referred to the records maintained by the Bank and brought to the notice of this Court the letter dated the 11th of June, 1994 written by the Assistant Manager to the General Manager(Vigilance), wherein it is stated that in view of the satisfactory past record of the petitioner, nil financial loss to the Bank, confession by the petitioner and the assurance given the petitioner that such type of negligence will not be repeated by him in future, he had proposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The Vigilance Department on the 9th of July, 1994 had written back to the disciplinary authority requesting him to reconsider the case and propose some suitable penalty keeping in view the fraudulent irregularities committed by the petitioner. It is thereafter the impugned order was passed on the 26th of August, 1994. According to Mr.Jagat Arora, the learned counsel for the respondents, the disciplinary authority had taken into account all the circumstances of the case and the Vigilance Department had only directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider the case and there was no direction by the Vigilance Department to enhance the penalty. Therefore, according to Mr.Jagat Arora, the learned counsel for the respondents, this is not a case where the disciplinary authority acted at the instance of an authority who was not competent to issue any such direction.

18. The petitioner had clearly admitted the charges levelled against him. Apart from admitting the charges, he also stated:

"Then I came to the Branch and found myself helpless. My scenses stopped working and in the absent state of mind, I unintentionally altered the amount in the FDR ledger in the state of nervousness. But it was done only after the payment was made and the party was not traceable."

19. In the light of this, the punishment imposed is absolutely in accordance with law and it cannot at all be challenged.

20. Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no basis on the assumption by the Bank that the customer concerned had no account with the Bank. That is not relevant and I do not want to deal with the argument.

21. In "Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi Vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal & Another", , the Supreme Court had dealt with a different set of facts. The facts as noticed by the Supreme Court are:

"In 1982, the petitioner was a Manager of the Syndicate Bank (`the Bank') at East Patel Nagar Branch at New Delhi. He discounted a cheque of the sum of Rs.50,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Madras, after obtaining, by phone prior approval of the Regional Divisional Manager of the Bank. The cheque was sent for realisation to the Punjab National Bank at Madras, but it was returned unpaid. The petitioner did not take prompt action to recover the amount from the person in whose favour he discounted the cheque. He kept the cheque with him even without reporting to the higher authorities. In 1983, the Assistant General Manager of the Bank called upon him to explain why the amount due under the discounted cheque has not been recovered. The petitioner in his reply explained the circumstances under which the cheque was given to the account of one Dr.N.Ramakrishnan who was a Senior Scientist in Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi but the amount was withdrawn by another person called A.Chandrashekhar who is an officer of the Bank. He has further stated that A.Chandrashekhar has promised to pay the amount and, therefore, he has retained the instrument with him hoping that A.Chandrashekhar would keep up his promise. On 6 July 1984 a sum of Rs.52,167.15 was deposited with the Bank. A sum of Rs.36,000/- towards principal sum and Rs.16,167.15 towards interest. A suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs.14,000/- out of the principal amount. And later on, this principal amount was also recovered and credited to the Bank.

However, in 1985 there was a departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The Commissioner for Vigilance Inquiry from the Central Vigilance Commission conducted the inquiry. The first charge against the petitioner was that when he was functioning as Manager, he discounted under his discretionary jurisdiction a cheque for Rs.50,000/- drawn in the name of Dr.N.Ramakrishnan in order to accommodate A.Chandrashekhar an officer of the Bank or others known to him. The second charge framed against him, related to the retention of the discounted instrument with him from December, 1982 till January 1984 without taking/causing to be taken any action to realise the amount due under the unpaid cheque. It was also alleged that the petitioner made available undue financial accommodation to A.Chandrashekhar or others to the detriment of the interests of the Bank. He was charged with lack of integrity, honesty devotion to duty, diligence and conduct unbecoming of the status of a Bank Officer in contravention of Regulation No.3(1) of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976."

22. The Bank therein, it was not disputed, referred to the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission for advice and the Commission had recommended that the Bank Officer concerned should be imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. That was challenged before the Supreme Court. The officer of the Bank submitted before the Supreme Court that the Bank had followed the instructions of the Ministry of Finance to seek advice from the Central Vigilance Commission or the Chief Vigilance Officer and that was not recognisable in law and the disciplinary authority who exercised its discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances and the gravity of the offence. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the disciplinary authority on the ground that the disciplinary authority had acted on the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission relating to punishment and, therefore, the order was liable to be set aside.

23. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority had only referred the matter to the Chief Vigilance Officer and the Vigilance Officer, as noticed above, had not directed that a particular punishment should be imposed. Therefore, on the ground urged by the petitioner, the order of the disciplinary authority cannot be faulted.

24. Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in "State Bank of India & Others Vs. D.C.Aggarwal & Another", . The order of the disciplinary authority was confirmed by the appellate authority. They were challenged before the learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The learned Single Judge set aside the order. On appeal, the Division Bench concurred with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The Bank took up the matter before , in appeal, to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court posed the question for decision in the following terms:

"Can Disciplinary Authority while imposing punishment, major or minor, act on material which is neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent is the only issue, of substance, which arises for consideration in this appeal, filed by the State Bank of India against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana."

25. The report of the Inquiry Officer and the recommendations of the Central Vigilance Commission were sent to the disciplinary authority and it did not agree with the quantum of punishment suggested by the Central Vigilance Commission. The disciplinary authority stated that the imposition of extreme penalty of suspension of service, as advised by the Central Vigilance Commission, would be too harsh.

26. The Supreme Court held:

"Although correctness of the order passed by the High Court was assailed from various aspects, including the power of the High Court to interfere on quantum of punishment, in writ jurisdiction, but we propose to confine only to the question of effect of non-supply of CVC recommendations as if the order was invalid and void on this score only it is not necessary to decide any other issue. Law on natural justice is so well settled from series of decisions of this Court that it leaves one bewildered, at times, that such bodies like State Bank of India, who are assisted by hierarchy of law officers, commit such basic and fundamental procedural errors that courts are left with no option except to set aside such orders. Imposition of punishment to an employee, on material which is not only not supplied but not disclosed to him, has not been countenanced by this Court. Procedural fairness is as much essence of right and liberty as the substantive law itself."

27. The Supreme Court further held:

"The order is vitiated not because of mechanical exercise of power or for non-supply of the inquiry report but for relying and acting on material which was not only irrelevant but could not have been looked into."

28. The Supreme Court accepted the view of the disciplinary authority that the Bank had not proved any monetary loss and there was no conclusive proof that the officer concerned had misappropriated the Bank's funds or obtained pecuniary gains for himself.

29. The facts before the Supreme Court have absolutely no resemblance to the facts of this case and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court does not at all apply to the facts of this case.

30. Mr.Jagat Arora, the learned counsel for the respondents, referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in "Sunil Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Others", , a judgment delivered by three learned Judges of the Supreme Court. The appellant before the Supreme Court was charge-sheeted and it contained five charges. An inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer held that charges 2 & 5 were proved, charges 3 & 4 were partly proved and charge No.1 was also proved but considered to be technical omission rather than a serious lapse. The Vigilance Commission considered the inquiry officer's report. The Vigilance Commission differed from the view taken by the inquiry officer. Thereupon, the disciplinary authority, the Government of West Bengal, issued notice to the appellant that charges 1 to 3 & 5 were fully proved and charge No.4 was partly proved and called upon the appellant to show case why he had not been reduced in rank. The Union Public Service Commission was consulted. It gave the opinion that charge No.3 had not been proved while charge No.1 was proved but considered to be a technical irregularity and according to the Union Public Service Commission, charges 2, 4 and 5 were partly proved. The disciplinary authority, the Government of West Bengal, came to the final conclusion that charge No.3 had not been proved. The charge No.1 had been proved but was only a technical irregularity and charges 2, 4 & 5 were partly proved. On this, the punishment of reduction in rank was imposed. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court. The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, found that charges 2,3 & 5 were proved and charge No.4 was partly proved. Charge No.1 was proved but was only technical irregularity. According to the learned Judge, the punishment which was actually imposed could be imposed in respect of charge No.4 to the extent to which it was proved and on this view, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. On appeal before the Division Bench, at the instance of the appellant, the learned Judges differed on the question whether charge No.4 was proved or not. Both the Judges agreed in dismissing the appeal. That was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dealing with the point about consulting the Vigilance Commission held:

"We do not also think that the disciplinary authority committed any serious or material irregularity in consulting the Vigilance Commissioner, even assuming that it was so done. The conclusion of the disciplinary authority was not based on the advice tendered by the Vigilance Commissioner but was arrived at independently, on the basis of the charges, the relevant material placed before the Enquiry Officer in support of the charges, and the defense of the delinquent officer. In fact the final conclusions of the disciplinary authority on the several charges are so much at variance with the opinion of the Vigilance Commissioner that it is impossible to say that the disciplinary authority's mind was in any manner influenced by the advice tendered by the Vigilance Commissioner. We think that if the disciplinary authority arrived at its own conclusion on the material available to it, its findings and decision cannot be said to be tainted with any illegality merely because the disciplinary authority consulted the Vigilance Commissioner and obtained his views on the very same material. One of the submissions of the appellant was that a copy of the report of the Vigilance Commissioner should have been made available to him when he was called upon to show cause why the punishment of reduction in rank should not be imposed upon him. We do not see any justification for the insistent request made by the appellant to the disciplinary authority that the report of the Vigilance Commissioner should be made available to him. In the preliminary findings of the disciplinary authority which were communicated to the appellant there was no reference to the views of the Vigilance Commissioner. The findings which were communicated to the appellant were those of the disciplinary authority and it was wholly unnecessary for the disciplinary authority to furnish the appellant with a copy of the report of the Vigilance Commissioner when the findings communicated to the appellant were those of the disciplinary authority and not of the Vigilance Commission. That the preliminary findings of the disciplinary authority happened to coincide with the views of the Vigilance Commission is neither here nor there."

31. This case is close to the facts of this case and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court would govern the instant case.

32. Mr.Jagat Arora, the learned counsel for the respondents, referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in "The Central Bank of India Ltd., Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee", , wherein the Supreme Court had held that the workman had no right to be represented by the concerned trade union in an inquiry before the management. On the questions of principle of natural justice, the Supreme Court held:

"We must, however, emphasize that the rules of natural justice, as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman, it is needless to state that the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management, and the witnesses called, by the management, must be allowed to be cross-examined, by the workman, and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea. But, if the workman admits his guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence about the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to the management to examine the workman himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct, or to place before the management any circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence. But, even then, the examination of the workman, under such circumstances, should not savour of an inquisition. If, after the examination of the workman, the management chooses to examine any witnesses, the workman must be given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence that he may choose."

33. The petitioner had in his statement of defense admitted the charges levelled against him. The inquiry commenced against the petitioner had to be closed in view of the admission by the petitioner. Therefore, it was for the disciplinary authority to consider the question of the imposition of the punishment. The disciplinary authority had only written to the Vigilance Officer about the punishment proposed and the Vigilance Officer had requested the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the fraudulent acts of the petitioner.

34. The petitioner was holding the position of a Manager of a Bank. Such an officer is expected to act in the interests of the Bank. The amount involved in this case is not a small one. Right from the beginning up to the changing of entry in the FDR register, the petitioner, who held the position of a Manager, acted quite contrary to the expectations. When he was confronted with the charges, he realised the mistake and sold his property and deposited the amount. That was only to avoid any criminal proceedings against him. The petitioner knew the consequences of what he was doing. At the time of inquiry, he might have changed his mind to turn a new leaf in life but that was too late in the day. If a person in a lower rank had been found guilty of some misdemeanour, that would be a different matter. But an officer who is heading a Branch Office of a Bank cannot at all be heard to give any excuse. The attitude of the petitioner that he owned moral responsibility would betray the real person in the petitioner. It is not necessary to go further and I am not able to accept any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

35. In my view, the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.