Uco Bank vs Mr. R.D. Gupta (Deceased)
1999 Latest Caselaw 622 Del

ORDER

Usha Mehra, J.

1. Mr. R.D. Gupta (deceased) respondent was working as the Chief Cashier at Maya Puri Branch of the appellant Bank. He was charge sheeted for having dishonestly and fraudulently making wrongful gain of Rs. 6,630/- by falsely and incorrectly crediting the voucher of this amount in the name of Mr. Vakil Mahato in his name and in his account. He mis-appropriated the said amount which was actually meant for one Shri Vakil Mahato to class 'D' employee of this bank. Enquiry was conducted. Report was submitted. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of withholding of two increments of pay with cumulative effect and the period of suspension was directed to be treated as not spent on duty. The Reviewing Authority, however, after perusing the record found that this act of the respondent was prejudicial to the interest of the bank, therefore, passed the order thereby enhancing the penalty of removal from service. It was against this order of enhanced penalty that the respondent filed the writ petition which was allowed by the impugned order dated 15th July, 1998.

2. The appellant bank by this appeal has assailed the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the Reviewing Authority had the power to enhance the punishment. The Reviewing Authority while differing with the Disciplinary Authority's decision assigned reason for the same. The sufficiency of that reason cannot be gone into by this Court in a writ jurisdiction.

3. In order to appreciate the contention raised at the Bar by counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to have quick glance to the facts of this case as well as relevant regulations known as UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 as well as the contents of the show cause notice and the final order passed by the Reviewing Authority against the respondent. Regulation 18 which is relevant for the determination of this case is reproduced as under:-

18. Review:

Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Reviewing Authority may call for the record of the case within six months of the date of the final order and after reviewing the case pass such orders therein as it may deem fit:

Provided that-

(i) if any enhanced penalty, which the Reviewing Authority proposes to impose, is a major penalty specified in Clauses (e),

(f), (g) or (h) of regulation 4 and an enquiry as provided underegulation 6 has not already been held in the case, the Reviewing Authority shall direct that such an enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of regulation 6 and ereafter consider the record of the enquiry and pass such orders as it may deem proper;

(ii) if the Reviewing Authority decides the enhance the punishment but an enquiry has already been held in accordance with the provisions of regulation 6, the Reviewing Authority shall give show cause notice to the officer employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him and shall pass an order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the officer employee.

4. In the case in hand admittedly clause (ii) of Regulation 18 would apply because the Disciplinary Authority intended to impose the enhanced penalty in this case after the enquiry officer had already submitted his report and the disciplinary authority taken the decision. Reading of clause (ii) of Regulation 18 makes it clear that a show cause notice is a condition precedent before the reviewing authority intend to enhance the punishment. In the case in hand the Reviewing Authority had issued show cause notice on 13th September, 1984, to which the respondent (deceased) submitted his reply. It was only after considering his representation, the officer record and the enquiry proceedings and the charges levelled against him that the Reviewing Authority decided to enhance the penalty and thus passed the final impugned order on 17th November, 1984. Show cause notice dated 13th September, 1984 and final order dated 17th November, 1984 are reproduced as under:-

     Ref. No. PAD-M/IR/84/2                  September 13, 1984
     Shri R.D. Gupta,
     (PFM No. 5889),
     Chief Cashier,
     United Commercial Bank,
     Sheikh Sarai (1392) Branch,
     New Delhi.

 

      Dear Sir, 
 

      I  have called for the records of your case in exercise of  power vested in me by virtue of Regulation 18 of the United  Commercial Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 
 

I have carefully examined the Article of charges and Statement of Allegations issued to you on 21.10.1985 by the Asstt. General Manager, New Delhi, your reply dated 18.12.1983 thereto, the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority dated 11.4.1984 and other records of the enquiry.

From the above papers, it appears that you took delivery from the United Commercial Bank Employees' Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., to whom Shri Vakil Mahato had applied for a loan of an account payee cheque No. 775932 dated 29.9.1983 issued by the said Society favouring Shri Vakil Mahato for a sum of Rs. 6,630/-. Knowing that the said cheque was not in your favour, yet you prepared a credit voucher without mentioning the cheque number therein, deposited the said cheque in your own account for realisation and falsely certified on the back of the said cheque as "payment received through No Clearing House, Payee's Account credited, United Commercial Bank, Mayapuri, New Delhi." On proceeds being credited to your account, you withdrew the money for your use and thus misappropriated the amount of the said cheque. Your conduct in receiving the cheque from the said Society and later on putting it in your own account in dishonest and fraudulent way, as stated above and drawing the money thereafter clearly prove your mala fide and fraudulent intention. Your explanation that due to rush of work, without noticing that the cheque was in favour of Vakil Mahato, your prepared the voucher and deposited it in your account is not plausible. The cheque was delivered to your by the Secretary of the Society at Parliament Street Branch of the Bank, when you had been there. There was no rush of work at that time. You must have noticed that the cheque was not in your favour. There was a time gap between the receipt of the cheque by you and your putting it in your account. Even a man of ordinary prudence will before depositing a cheque in his own account verify whether the cheque is in his favour or not.

You have abused your position as Chief Cashier and committed a fraud taking advantage of a new comer Shri Vakil Mahato who joined the bank only on 14.9.1983.

In a financial institution, utmost integrity is expected. You have betrayed the confidence reposed in you by the Bank as Chief Cashier. I propose to pass the following order against you:

"Shri R.D. Gupta is removed from the Bank's services which shall not be a disqualification for future employment."

You are hereby requested to show cause within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter why the above order shall not be passed against you. If no reply is received by me within the stipulated period, I will presume that you have nothing to say in the matter.

Yours faithfully,

sd/-

General Manager

Reviewing Authority"

"November 17, 1984

O R D E R

In the matter of disciplinary proceedings against Shri R.D. Gupta, Chief Cashier, (PFM No. 5889). Sheikh Sarai (New Delhi) Branch.

In pursuance of the power vested in me by virtue of Regulation 18 of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, I called for the records of the case of Shri R.D. Gupta. On consideration of the facts and records of the case, I came to the conclusion that the Disciplinary authority had viewed the misconduct/offence lightly while passing his orders on 11th April, 1984. The Punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct/offence.

Accordingly, in my capacity as the Reviewing Authority I had, vide my letter dated 13th September, 1984 called upon Shri R.D. Gupta to show cause within 10 days from the receipt of the said letter as to why the punishment under Regulation 4(g) of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 i.e. his removal from the Bank's service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, cannot be imposed on him.

I have received his reply dated 1st October, 1984 to the aforesaid letter and do not find any extenuating circumstances or fresh points to reconsider the punishment proposed by me in my letter dated 13th September, 1984.

In the above premises, I pass the following order under Regulation 4(g) of the aforesaid Regulations against him.

"SHRI R.D. GUPTA IS REMOVED FROM THE BANK'S SERVICE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT WHICH SHALL NOT BE A DISQUALIFICATION FOR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT."

sd/-

General Manager,

Reviewing Authority"

5. The cojoint reading of the above two letters leave no manner of doubt chat the Reviewing Authority had followed the procedure prescribed under the Regulation No.18. The fial order has to be read with the show cause notice. Thus the combined reading of these two letters show that the Reviewing Authority had not only assigned reasons for differing with the disciplinary authority but also gave opportunity to the respondent to meet the same before enhancing the penalty. The reason as given in the show cause notice (which has been underlined) on that basis final order was passed. The same has already been quoted above. It shows that the respondent betrayed the confidence reposed by the bank as the Chief Cashier of the Bank. As Chief Chashier utmost integrity was expected from him. But he by misusing his power as Cheif Cashier not only took delivery of a payee's cheque from the United Commercial Bank Employees' Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. amounting to Rs. 6,630/- but also deposited the same in his account. Ordinarily a payee's cheque cannot be deposited in anybody else's account. Had a payee's cheque been submitted by any other customer to be deposited in another account the bank official would have raised objection, but being Chief Cashier the respondent managed to get the payee's cheque drawn in the name of Mr. Vakil Mahato deposited in his account. He knew that the cheque was not meant for him still he endorsed it and deposited in his account. He prepared a credit voucher in which as per the record of the bank without mentioning the cheque number. The endorsement given at the back of the cheque was by him. He deposited the said cheque in his own account as quoted in the show cause notice. This was found to be not an innocent act but a dishonest and fraudulent act. It was on the basis of these facts that the Reviewing Authority diferred from the Disciplinary Authority as it thought that the misconduct was such which require punishment proportionate to the same. That the misconduct of the (deceased) respondent was such by which the bank lost its confidence in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan observed that "It needs to be emphasised that in the banking business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honestly needs to be preserved by every bank employee......If this is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired." These observations of the Apex Court squarely apply to the facts of this case.

6. The contention of the counsel for the respondent is that the respondent had long service behind him. This was his first offence and punishment imposed was disproportionate. We do not fined any substance in this contention.

7. The Apex Court in umpteen number of cases observed that the Court should refrain itself from going into the question of proportionality of the punishment imposed unless the punishment imposed was illegal or vitiated by procedural impropriety or that the decision arrived at by the authority was one which no sensible person who weighed the pros and cons could have arrived at or that the decision was based on no material or it was "outrageous" defiance of logic. In the absence of there being any of these conditions prevailing the punishment cannot be questioned nor quashed. For support reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. G. Ganayutham, . For the reasons given by the Reviewing Authority and as quoted in the letters quoted above we are afraid we cannot hold that the punishment was "outrageous" defiance of logic or that it was not based on any material. Nor it can be said that the impugned penalty shocks the conscience of the Court. In the facts of this case it cannot be said that the punishment is wholly disproportionate or that the principle of natural justice has not been complied with. Penalty imposed vide the impugned order is neither arbitrary nor grossly excessive compared to the gravity of the offence committed. From a bank employee particularly when he happened to be a Chief Cashier absolute devotion, integrity and honesty was expected, which by his conduct the (deceased) respondent betrayed. When faith is lost in an employee, particularly in banking business where public money is involved, absolute integrity is the demand. Since the competent authority found the same to be lacking hence this Court cannot question the penalty imposed. The choice of imposition of penalty is the option available to the authority and the court cannot substitute its views as to what punishment should be imposed. Once the facts are admitted, there is no reason to doubt the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority that he betrayed the confidence reposed in him by the Bank. Even otherwise the Courts are slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the competent authority.

8. For the reasons stated above the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside. However, in the facts of this case parties are left to bear their own costs.