N.K. Singhal vs Syndicate Bank
2011 Latest Caselaw 1259 Del

     *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                     W.P.(C) 5097 OF 1999


+                                   Date of Decision: 3rd March, 2011

#        N.K. SINGHAL                                     ...Petitioner
!                                 Through: Mr. Ravinder Raj, Advocate


                                   Versus


$        SYNDICATE BANK                                   ...Respondent
                                     Through: Mr. Jagat Arora, Advocate


       CORAM:
*      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
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 in the digest? (No)


                            JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J:

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the respondent

bank dismissing him from service for his having committed serious act

of misconduct.

2. The petitioner joined the respondent bank as a Clerk on 18.8.73

and in due course was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager on

03/06/85. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 01/07/92 by the

respondent and in the charge-sheet it was stated as under:

That you have been functioning as Asst. Manager at our Chandni Chowk Branch since 12.7.91.

That while functioning in your position, as such, you were incharge of Branch adjustment, CDD and OBC departments.

That while functioning in your position as such, you falsified branch records by making fictitious debit and credit entries under Branch Adjustment account, SB A/c no. 19688 of Smt. Shakunthala Devi, Joint SB A/c no. 19500 in your name along with your wife Smt. Daya Singhal and in CDD ledger

a) Under Branch Adjustment Account:

Dr. IBA No./date Drawn on Amount i.)701261/24.1.92 Meerut(no branch Rs.20,000.00

ii)701265/28.1.92 name specified FD 292363/91 Rs.30,000.00 &FD 292364/91 paid at Meerut Br.PM. Road Rs. 20,000.00

iii)701273/30.1.92 Bombay-reliance Rs.15,000.00 Inds. Warrant

-----------------

Rs.85,000.00

--------------

                **FD no.292352/81

                b) Under CDD A/c





                 Particulars         Amount                CDD no./date
                i)CDD/MD/52 dt.     DD no.89962 of      Rs. 37,500.00
                  29.7.91            union bank

                ii)CDD/104 dt.       LIC,Meerut          Rs.25.000.00
                   10.9.91
                                 AND

Proceeds of these fictitious entries were credited to SB a/c no. 19688 of Smt. Shakuntala Devi and SB a/c no, 19500 of yourself with your wife Smt. Daya Singhal respectively.

AND various other irregularities as more fully described in the statement of imputation of misconduct, are mentioned here below.

by your above acts ,you have contravened regulation no.3 (1) read with regulation no. 24 of syndicate bank officer employee s (conduct) regulation 1976.

That while functioning in your position as above , you opened or caused to open a current a/c no. 4261 on 28.1.92 in the name of M/S syndicate bank staff investment funds without approval /consent/ acknowledge of competent authority.

AND without submitting required form for opening the a/c and also obtained a cheque book in re4spect of said current a/c AND committed various other irregularities as more fully described IN the statement of imputation of misconduct, are mentioned here below.

By your above acts, you have contravened regulation no.3 (1) read with regulation no. 24 of syndicate bank officer employee s (conduct) regulation 1976."

3. The petitioner in his reply dated 14-07-92 to the charge-sheet had

admitted the allegations levelled against him but despite that the

respondent decided to hold a regular enquiry against him and an enquiry

officer was appointed by the respondent bank. On 28th August, 1992 the

enquiry proceedings were started at the outset, the petitioner was

explained the charges against him and when asked by the enquiry

officer as to what he had to say about those charges the petitioner

pleaded guilty and requested the enquiry officer for taking a lenient

view in the matter assuring that he will not repeat the irregularities in

future. The petitioner also submitted before the enquiry officer a letter

dated 28/08/92 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority admitting that he

had committed the charged acts and requested the Disciplinary

Authority also to take a lenient view. The Enquiry proceedings, copies

of which have been placed on record by the petitioner himself, show

that that even though the petitioner had admitted the charges leveled

against him the management's representative had stated that he was

ready with all the documentary and oral evidence for establishing the

charges leveled against the petitioner. The documents produced were

then taken on record and the petitioner was asked by the enquiry officer

to go through those documents for verification and he was also supplied

the photocopies of those documents. The petitioner after going through

all the documents again stated that he was not wanting any enquiry

since he was admitting the charges. Thereafter the enquiry proceedings

were closed and the enquiry officer gave his report holding the

petitioner guilty on that date itself. Against the findings of the Enquiry

Officer the petitioner was then given an opportunity to make a

representation which he did and in his representation also he accepted

his guilt but offered an explanation that the irregularities committed by

him were because of his suffering from hypertension and hypermania

from 1974 in view of serious injuries sustained by his brother in some

communal riots which took place in Saharanpur.

4. On 26.10.92 an order dismissing the petitioner from service was

passed by the Deputy General Manager. On 24.11.92 a departmental

appeal to the General Manager was filed by the petitioner.

5. In his appeal, also he submitted that he had accepted all the

charges leveled against him and had also reimbursed all the money of

the bank and apologized for his misconduct. The appeal was however

dismissed by the Appellate Authority while appreciating the uprightness

of the appellant (petitioner) in admitting the charges.

6. On 09.02.93, a review petition was filed by the petitioner against

the order of the Appellate Authority and the same was also rejected by

the Reviewing Authority on 28.9.93.

7. On 1.3.95, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226

before this Hon'ble Court challenging his dismissal from service but it

was withdrawn on 25.9.96 and liberty to file a fresh petition was given

to him by the Court in case necessity arose. Then after three years the

present petition was filed by the petitioner.

8. In the present writ petition the petitioner claimed that the very

issuance of charge-sheet was vitiated since in the charge-sheet itself it

had been stated that the petitioner had misused his official position and

had acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer which showed that

at that stage itself the Disciplinary Authority had already made up its

mind about the guilt of the petitioner and that was further evident from

the fact that in the charge-sheet the petitioner had also been asked to

show cause as to why an appropriate punishment be not imposed upon

him. Regarding the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner claimed that it

was simply an eye-wash since the enquiry had commenced at 11.00

a.m. and was concluded on the first day itself within an hour which

showed that even the enquiry officer was in a hurry to give a report

against the petitioner. It was also claimed that the letter dated 28 th

August, 1992 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority by the petitioner

was procured from him by the Enquiry Officer on the assurance that a

lenient view shall be taken. It was claimed that the management of the

bank was in a dominating position and using that position it had

succeeded in procuring admission of guilt from the petitioner by

assuring him that he shall be dealt with leniently but subsequently the

authorities had not honoured that assurance. Another plea raised in the

petition was that the bank had condoned similar kind of lapses

committed by other employees and had taken a lenient view in their

cases but in the case of the petitioner extreme and harsh punishment of

dismissal from service was imposed.

9. All the aforesaid contentions raised in the writ petition were

reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of

hearing of the writ petition. Strong reliance was placed on a judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Central Inland Water Transport

Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr.", AIR 1986

SC 157 in support of the submission that since the management of the

bank was in a dominating position admission of guilt could easily be

procured from the petitioner and therefore, that admission alone was

not sufficient to hold him guilty in the enquiry and enquiry officer

should have proceeded ahead to conduct the enquiry on merits by

calling upon the management to adduce necessary evidence in support

of the charges leveled against the petitioner. Learned counsel also

cited some judgments in support of his submission that the language

used in the charge-sheet being suggestive of the fact that the

Disciplinary Authority had already come to the conclusion that the

petitioner was guilty, the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings

against the petitioner was liable to be set aside by this Court. In the

end, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since the

petitioner had voluntarily paid back the money to the bank which he

had allegedly misappropriated by falsifying bank records this Court

should at least take a lenient view on the point of punishment and the

punishment of dismissal from service deserved to be substituted by a

lesser punishment.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent bank

while opposing the petition submitted that since the petitioner had all

along been admitting his guilt and he having not placed on record any

material to show that he was induced into admitting his guilt this writ

petition, which in any event was filed belatedly even after withdrawal

of the earlier writ petition, deserved to be dismissed. Learned counsel

submitted that the management of the bank had the best evidence

against the petitioner in the form of his own admission of guilt not only

in the enquiry proceedings but even in the reply to the charge-sheet. It

was also argued that before the filing of the present writ petition the

petitioner had not claimed either before the Disciplinary Authority or

before the Appellate Authority and not even before the Reviewing

Authority that he had been induced into admitting his guilt and

therefore, the plea raised in the present writ petition in that regard

was an afterthought. Regarding the plea of the petitioner that the

bank's money having been paid back by him lenient view should be

taken the learned counsel submitted, relying upon a judgment of the

Supreme Court reported as (2005) 10 SCC 84, that that was no reason

to take a lenient view since serious acts of bungling amounting to

serious crime were committed by the petitioner.

11. After having considered the pleading of the parties and the

submissions made at the bar and also having perused the enquiry

record I have no manner of doubt that this writ petition is absolutely

devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The plea raised by the

petitioner that he had admitted his guilt only on the assurance that he

shall be dealt with leniently is clearly an afterthought and not only that

the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate the same. He has

not even named anyone who had given him the assurance that in case

he would admit the charges he would be dealt with leniently in the

matter of imposition of punishment upon him. Nowhere had he earlier

claimed so which shows that he had not made the admission of guilt

because of any such assurance which he claims to have been given to

him on behalf of the respondent bank. In his various representations

and communications with the bank authorities he had been simply

claiming that because of certain tensions in his mind he had committed

the financial irregularities. In view of the fact that the petitioner

himself had taken the decision not to have an enquiry conducted

against him no fault can be found with the decision of the enquiry

officer in concluding the enquiry proceedings on the first day itself

when the enquiry had started. No allegation had been leveled by him

in his appeal that the letter dated 28th August, 1992, in which also he

had admitted his guilt, had been procured from him by the enquiry

officer on the assurance that his case shall be dealt with leniently.

Therefore, this allegation against the enquiry officer also cannot be

accepted.

12. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed but without any order

as to costs.

P.K. BHASIN, J

MARCH 03, 2011/pg