G.L. Makkar vs Punjab National Bank
2006 Latest Caselaw 1439 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. The petitioner is challenging his order of punishment namely 'Censure' dated 31.10.1997. The petitioner is also asking for interest on gratuity and provident fund which were released to him late on account of the charge-sheet and the enquiry into the alleged acts of his misconduct. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as a Senior Manager with the respondent bank. The charge-sheet was issued to him on 13.4.1994, about six months prior to his date of superannuation. The imputation of charge was that he mechanically and negligently passed eight cheques issued against forged bills which facilitated Mr. P.K. Sharma, the then Assistant Manager, RMO, Patna to misappropriate the funds. The Enquiry Officer has returned a finding on the basis of evidence produced before him that the petitioner issued eight cheques by counter-signing them. The task of the petitioner is to show that the report of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. In the first place, it is stated that the charge itself is wrong inasmuch as the petitioner counter-signed eight cheques and not passed the eight cheques. Everbody involved in the process of charge-sheeting and enquiry fully understood what was the import of the article of charge and the imputation of misconduct. The petitioner himself understood that the allegation was of counter-signing the cheques issued against the forged bills. This mistake in the framing of charge has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned Award of punishment cannot be set aside.

2. Coming to the enquiry, the petitioner has to show that the report is perverse. Admittedly, the petitioner counter-signed the cheques and, therefore, prima facie the petitioner had some responsibility of ensuring that the cheques were being correctly issued. There is nothing on record or in the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer which shows that the counter-signature could be done without any responsibility. The petitioner admits that he counter-signed the cheques. He himself says that he counter-signed them mechanically because some other officer had also signed the cheques. Therefore, the lack of vigilance while signing the cheques is apparent in the matter. Even the charge is merely that he signed the cheques mechanically and negligently. There is no charge of the petitioner misappropriating any money. Thus, the finding of the Enquiry Officer can be supported from the facts and circumstance of the case. I am unable to say that the report of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and, therefore, liable to be set aside or that no punishment could be inflicted upon the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report.

3. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was the minimum punishment of censure. There being some misconduct in the form of negligence, the minimum punishment should follow. He cannot claim that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the offence and, therefore, liable to be set aside. Petitioner's claim for setting aside the order of punishment, therefore, cannot succeed.

4. The petitioner now says that because of the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, his provident fund and gratuity had been detained and that they were released after the conclusion of the enquiry and issuance of the order of punishment and in this process a period of three years had lapsed but no interest on the provident fund and gratuity released to him was given. Both parties have placed reliance upon the circulars of the bank issued for this purpose from time to time. The respondent is relying upon a Personnel Division Circular No.1677 dated 20.7.1999 which says that if the provident fund is not paid or withheld on account of some reason and the amount of provident fund is refundable by a subsequent decision, no interest is payable unless specifically decided for payment of interest for the overdue period. The same circular makes provision for withholding of gratuity and says that unless there is a specific order for payment of interest on the gratuity withheld for similar purpose, no interest will be payable. The respondent bank has not taken any conscious decision as to whether interest should be paid to the petitioner on the gratuity and provident fund which were withheld during the enquiry proceedings. There is no complete bar on payment of interest in such situations.

5. It can be seen that when the charge-sheet was issued, the petitioner was almost due to superannuation. But the charge-sheet was so simple and the misconduct was so apparent that the enquiry could have been concluded within a period of six months. Even if for some reason the enquiry was prolonged, three and a half years period taken for conclusion of the enquiry was certainly not justified. In these circumstances, the respondent should have taken a conscious decision for payment of some interest to the petitioner on the gratuity and provident fund withheld during the enquiry. The petitioner retired in October, 1994. It was at that time that the petitioner was entitled to the refund of provident fund and gratuity.

6. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the petitioner should have been allowed interest, at least, for the period during which the enquiry proceedings were unnecessarily prolonged. In my view, the petitioner should have been paid interest, at least, from 1st January, 1995. I direct that the respondent shall release to the petitioner interest on the refunded amount of provident fund and gratuity @8% from 1st January, 1995 till the date of actual payment within a period of eight weeks. Rest of the claim in the writ petition is dismissed.