Ramesh Kumar vs Regional Manager, P.N.B.
2009 Latest Caselaw 136 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    LPA 439/2008

     RAMESH KUMAR              ..... Appellant
                Through Mr. Romy Chacko, Amicus Curiae.

                 versus

     REGIONAL MANAGER P.N.B ATMA RAM HOUSE
                       ........ Respondent
                 Through Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

               ORDER

% 16.01.2009

1. The appellant, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, was dismissed from service

after holding an enquiry by the employer, Punjab National Bank. The

dismissal was challenged before the Industrial Tribunal by the

appellant but without success. It was then made subject matter of

challenge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9379/2006 but again without

success as the writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order

dated 16th April, 2007.

2. In the present appeal it was contended that the report of the

Enquiry Officer is vitiated on the ground of no evidence and the

punishment of dismissal could not have been imposed under the

Service Rules.

3. An enquiry report, which is based upon no evidence and is

perverse can certainly be set aside but the question is whether the

present case is one of no evidence. The allegation against the

appellant was that an account holder, Mr. Hitesh Bhatnagar had

deposited two bearers cheques for Rs.3,000/- each to be credited to

the savings account of Mr. Hitesh Bhatnagar and his wife. The

cheques were drawn on Bank of India, Defence Colony, New Delhi in

the name of wife of Mr. Hitesh Bhatnagar. The cheques were

encashed but credit was not given in the account of Mr. Hitesh

Bhatnagar and his wife. Mr. Hitesh Bhatnagar made a complaint,

which was found to be correct and Punjab National Bank was forced

to give credit of Rs.6,000/- to Mr. Hitesh Bhatnagar.

4. The Enquiry Officer has held that the appellant, Mr. Ramesh

Kumar was the person, who had received the said two cheques from

Mr. Hitesh Bhatnagar. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion

that Mr. Ramesh Kumar did not make entry of these instruments in

onward clearing register. The Enquiry Officer also held that the

appellant had deliberately/wrongly affixed the stamp on the

counterfoil, which as per the Rules, should be affixed in a manner

that it should overlap between the counterfoil retained by the bank

and the portion of the counterfoil given to the customer. The Enquiry Officer has referred to the letter written by Mr. Hitesh Bhatnagar that

Mr. Ramesh Kumar had visited his residence number of times along

with wife and daughter and had offered to pay him Rs.6,000/- to

make good the loss but this was not accepted by him as he wanted

due credit in his account. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the

contention of the appellant that it is a case of no evidence or the

finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse.

5. We do not agree that it was necessary that oral testimony of

Mr. Hitesh Bhatnagar should have been recorded before the Enquiry

Officer. Mr. Hitesh Bhatnagar was a customer of the bank and has

written two letters. He had no reason to make false allegations

against the appellant or wrongly implicate him. Moreover, witnesses,

who had appeared before the Enquiry Officer, had confirmed the

facts stated by Mr. Hitesh Bhatnagar in the said letters and

personally had gone and spoken to him. It may be also noticed that

the appellant had avoided participation in the enquiry proceedings

and was proceeded ex parte.

6. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 16th April,

2007 has drawn distinction between criminal proceedings and

departmental proceedings. Learned Single Judge has also observed

that the Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to discharge the appellant and there was no order on merits acquitting the appellant in

the criminal case. Decision in the criminal proceedings depends

upon evidence led in the said proceedings and the accused is entitled

to benefit of doubt, while in disciplinary proceedings the question

relates to conduct of the officer and whether any action should be

taken against him under the Service Rules. Standard and mode of

proof in the two proceedings are entirely different.

7. We also do not agree that only minor punishment could have

been awarded to the appellant under Clause 19.7 (c) of the Bipartite

Settlement. The said Clause relates to neglect of work and

negligence in performing duties. The allegation against the appellant

in the present case was that he had encashed two cheques of

Rs.3,000/- each, which had been deposited by the customer to be

credited to their account. Disciplinary proceedings were not in

respect of neglect of work or negligence in performance of duties.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant under

Clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement which reads as under:-

" Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss;"

8. We do not, therefore, find any merit in the last submission also.

9. The appeal is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

JANUARY 16, 2009 VKR