Shri S.P. Arora vs Syndicate Bank & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3003 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                  Date of decision: 1st July, 2010.

+                           W.P.(C) No.5355/2000

%

SHRI S.P. ARORA                                              ..... Petitioner
                            Through: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
                                     Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Advocate.

                                      Versus

SYNDICATE BANK & ANR.                          .... Respondents
                 Through: Ms. Sumati Anand & Ms. Ananya Datta
                          Majumdar, Advocates.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                 NO

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?          NO

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported         NO
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated

15th May, 1999 of the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank

imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner and the

order dated 19th August, 1999 of the Appellate Authority dismissing the

appeal thereagainst. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 1st

June, 1998 initiating the departmental inquiry against him as well as of the

report dated 21st January, 1999 of the Inquiring Authority.

2. The petitioner was charged with, while functioning as Sub Manager in

the Asaf Ali Road Branch of the respondent Bank during the period 20th

June, 1991 and 11th May, 1994, failing to ensure that the Savings Bank

balances are extracted periodically and tallied up to date and failing to

ensure that while transferring the accounts from manual system to

Automatic Ledger Processing Machine (ALPM), the correct balance was

carried over in respect of all Savings Bank Accounts fed to ALPM. It was

the charge of the respondent Bank that as a result of the said negligence of

the petitioner Rs.5,46,455/- was carried over instead of actual balance of

Rs.5,464.55p in SB Account No.26109 of one Shri Vipin Kumar

Khandelwal, resulting in excess credit of Rs.5,40,990.45p in the said account

and which amount the account holder withdrew, causing financial loss to the

respondent Bank.

3. It is not in dispute that the loss aforesaid of Rs.5,40,990.45p was

caused to the respondent Bank. The petitioner also admitted the same in his

cross examination before the Inquiring Authority. The senior counsel for the

petitioner at the time of hearing also informed that a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs had

already been recovered by the respondent Bank by filing a case against the

said party.

4. The Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank found that not

only had the petitioner failed to ensure the tallying of the balances but had

also authorized/signed the voucher transferring the Savings Bank Account

from the manual system to the ALPM system without verifying the list

containing the details of the accounts transferred to the ALPM and that

though the excess credit was lying in the Savings Bank account untouched

for more than four months, the petitioner failed to make any efforts to

tally/cause to be tallied Savings Bank Account and to rectify the error. The

contention of the petitioner that he had not authorized the entry was found to

be against the facts on the record in as much as the debit slip was found to

bear the initials of the petitioner; the same was held to be confirmation that

the petitioner had seen, checked and verified its correctness. The contention

of the petitioner that it was a feeding mistake was rejected because the

petitioner was expected to ensure extraction and tallying before transferring

to the ALPM and immediately after transferring the same as laid down in the

ALPM Manual. The Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner to have

shown laxity, indifference and negligence in the matter.

5. The scope of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited. As

far back as in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC

1723 it was held that the High Court under Article 226 is not a Court of Appeal

over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental inquiry; the Court is

concerned only to determine whether the inquiry is held by an authority

competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that

behalf and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. It was further

held that where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the

duty to hold the inquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably

support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is

not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an

independent finding on the evidence; the High Court may interfere where the

departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent

officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation

of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities

have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some consideration

extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing/letting

themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the

conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no

reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion--the

departmental authorities, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, are the sole

judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can

be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can

be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ

under Article 226. The judgments below-mentioned relied upon by the senior

counsel for the petitioner themselves lay down the Rule regarding the limited

scope of judicial review in a departmental inquiry. The counsel for respondent

Bank has in this regard also placed reliance on Praveen Bhatia Vs. Union of

India (2009) 4 SCC 225.

6. Upon the same being put to the senior counsel for the petitioner, he

contended that the documents asked for were declined. Attention in this regard

is invited to Annexure-G to the writ petition being a letter dated 7 th November,

1998 of the petitioner to the Inquiring Authority. It is contended that the

inquiry was vitiated for the said reason.

7. The counsel for the respondent Bank contends that though the letter was

written by the petitioner, but he did not make any grievance in this respect at

any subsequent time. It is contended that all the documents were supplied and

ultimately accepted during the inquiry proceedings and the non-supply

immediately after the letter aforesaid of the petitioner has not caused any

prejudice to the petitioner. It is also highlighted that even in the departmental

appeal preferred by the petitioner, no grievance with respect thereto was made.

The senior counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to show any

prejudice suffered by the petitioner therefrom.

8. Though the senior counsel for the petitioner in this regard has relied on

State of T.N. Vs. Thiru K.V. Perumal (1996) 5 SCC 474 and State of U.P. Vs.

Shatrughan Lal (1998) 6 SCC 651 but the same turn on their own facts. In the

present case no breach of Regulations qua inquiry or of principles of natural

justice causing prejudice to the petitioner has been established. The Supreme

Court recently in Union of India Vs. Alok Kumar MANU/SC/0269/2010 after

a review of the case law has held that "To frustrate the departmental enquiries

on a hyper technical approach has not found favour with the Courts in the

recent times". It was held that if upon admitted or indisputable facts, only one

conclusion was possible then in such a case that, non-observance of principles

of natural justice was immaterial. It was held that every case has to be

examined on its own merits and keeping in view the statutory rules applying to

such departmental proceedings. It was held that there must have been some

real prejudice to the complainant and there is no such thing as a mere technical

infringement of natural justice, the requirements of natural justice must depend

on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of inquiry and the

subject matter to be dealt with etc. The principles of natural justice and the

theory of reasonable opportunity were held to be neither incantations to be

invoked nor rites to be performed on all occasions. In the present case also, I

do not find that the arguments raised have any relevance to the inquiry

conducted nor non-compliance, if any, of the principles of natural justice

caused any prejudice to the petitioner.

9. In the present case, the incident causing loss to the respondent Bank is

not in dispute and the presence of the petitioner as Sub Manager in the

concerned respondent Bank is also not controvered. The only question is of the

role if any of the petitioner in the said incident. However, the findings of the

Disciplinary Authority of the said role of the petitioner cannot be interfered

with in these proceedings. All that this Court can enquire into is that, it is not a

case of a finding based on no evidence. In this connection, the counsel for the

respondent Bank draws attention to the cross examination of the petitioner,

where the petitioner has admitted his initials on the transfer vouchers. It was

expressly put to the petitioner that as an experienced officer (with 27 years'

service in the Bank) he was fully aware that the initials were intended to give

effect to the transaction and in token of correctness thereof. The only answer

which the petitioner could muster was that the same were at the instance of

Electronic Data Processing personnel who were given the task of transferring

the Saving Bank Account from the manual system to the ALPM. The said

explanation of the petitioner has not been accepted by the Disciplinary

Authority and the Appellate Authority and in my considered opinion rightly so.

The same links the petitioner directly to the misconduct and thus the present

cannot be said to be a case of the finding of guilt of the petitioner being based

on no evidence or being perverse. A senior official of the Bank, as the

petitioner was at the relevant time, cannot explain away his signatures / initials

by contending the same to be at the instance of his junior. A senior officer is

required to sign/verify a document only to ensure and sanction the action of the

junior. If the senior official instead of satisfying himself of the correctness of

the transaction relies on his juniors and/or acts on their representations then in

the event of a loss to the Bank and of the public monies, the said senior official

cannot shrug responsibility by blaming the juniors. If that were to be permitted,

there would have been no need for verification and vesting the responsibility in

such senior official.

10. The Supreme Court in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank Vs.

Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC 584 has held that a Bank Officer is required to

exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the

depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required

to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge

his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do

nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. The very discipline of a Bank

was held to be dependent upon each of its officers acting and operating within

their allotted sphere. The conduct of the petitioner in the present case is found

wanting. The counsel for respondent Bank has in this context also relied on

UCO Bank Vs. Hardev Singh 2006 (11) SCALE 88 and Nahar Singh Vs.

Food Corporation of India (2008) 5 SCC 209.

11. The senior counsel for the petitioner next contended that the duties of

the petitioner as the Sub Manager did not include the responsibility qua

tallying of the accounts. During the course of hearing, sheets from the Manual

of the respondent Bank qua duties of various officials were handed over. In the

absence of any pleadings to the said effect, no weightage can be given thereto.

Moreover, it is inexplicable, if it was not a part of the duties of the petitioner,

why the petitioner verified and signed the transfer vouchers.

12. The last contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner is that the

punishment meted out to other officials also chargesheeted qua the same

transaction was of withholding of three or two annual increments only and the

petitioner has been discriminated against. The counsel for the respondent Bank

has rightly responded that in the absence of the documents qua the proceedings

against the other officials, the said contention cannot be raised. Even if that

were to be so, I find that a Division Bench of this Court in Ved Prakash

Malhotra Vs. State Bank of India MANU/DE/0303/1973 held that "Even if it

is assumed that all of them had been equally responsible, the action taken

against the petitioner does not become discriminatory merely because similar

action was not taken against the others. All that the petitioner could be allowed

to urge is that action should be taken against the others. He cannot urge that

action should not be taken against him for that reason." The Supreme Court in

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai 2009 (13) SCC 635

has also held that one illegality cannot form the basis of another. In my view, it

is no argument in law that because one thief has been let off or let off lightly,

the other one also should be.

13. The Supreme Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M.

Chandrasekhar Reddy AIR 2005 SC 2769 held that when an employer loses

confidence in his employee particularly, in respect of a person who is

discharging a function of trust and confidence, there cannot be any justification

for directing his reinstatement. The said judgment applies on all force to the

facts of the present case.

There is no merit in the writ petition; the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 1st July, 2010 pp