N.K. Singhal vs Syndicate Bank & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5659 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                              Date of decision: 23rd November, 2011
+                               LPA No.427/2011

         N.K. SINGHAL                                           ..... Appellant
                            Through:      Mr. Rishikesh, Adv.

                                      versus

    SYNDICATE BANK & ORS.                    .... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Jagat Singh, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may      Not Necessary
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?       Not Necessary

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported
         in the Digest?                               Not Necessary

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The appeal impugns the order dated 3rd March, 2011 of the learned

Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.5097/1999 preferred by the appellant.

The said writ petition was filed impugning the order of dismissal of the

appellant from service of the respondent Bank, and the orders of dismissal

of the departmental appeal and review application preferred by the

appellant.

2. The appellant while working as Assistant Manager at the Chandni

Chowk Branch of the respondent Bank was vide order dated 7 th February,

1992 placed under suspension for the reason of having made fictitious

debit entries in the Branch Adjustment Account to the tune of `85,000/-

and having thereafter credited the proceeds by way of fictitious credit

entries in accounts of which he was the joint holder. A charge sheet dated

1st July, 1992 was served on the appellant and inquiry initiated. The

Inquiry Officer (IO) in the proceedings of 28 th August, 1992 has noted that

the appellant at that stage only stated that he neither wanted a defence

representative nor had any defence to make and had already submitted a

letter dated 14th July, 1992 to the Dy. General Manager of the respondent

Bank admitting his guilt and requesting for a lenient view to be taken in

the matter. It is further recorded that upon the charges being read, the

appellant admitted all the charges and again reiterated that he had no

defence and requested for a lenient view to be taken. The IO still

proceeded to take the documents produced by the respondent Bank in

support of the charge and authenticity and genuineness whereof the

appellant did not dispute. The IO accordingly on the basis of the evidence

led before him held the appellant guilty of all charges levelled against him.

The copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the appellant and

opportunity given to make submissions/representation with respect thereto.

The appellant again vide reply dated 17 th September, 1992 merely stated,

that he was a victim of circumstances and accepted his lapses; that he had

not caused any pecuniary loss to the respondent Bank in as much as he

had returned all the monies and again sought a lenient view. The

Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank after satisfying itself of the

validity of the inquiry, found no extenuating grounds to condone the

lapses/misconduct on the part of the appellant and held the misconduct to

be grave and serious in nature with dishonest intention to defraud the Bank

by misappropriating the funds of Bank and by falsification of the Bank‟s

record and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The

appellant preferred a departmental appeal and a perusal whereof also

shows that the appellant save for explaining the reasons for the

misconduct, did not dispute admission of guilt or aver any fault with the

inquiry proceedings. The Appellate Authority also held that the

misconduct being grave in nature warranting deterrent punishment,

dismissed the appeal. The appellant confined the review application also

to, having been compelled by circumstances to indulge in the acts with

which he was charged. The Review Authority found the acts/misconduct of

which the appellant had accepted his guilt, to be involving moral turpitude

and further held that a person of doubtful integrity cannot have any place

in an organization like banking. Accordingly the review application was

dismissed on 28th September, 1993.

3. The appellant after nearly 1½ years in March, 1995 field a writ

petition challenging his dismissal. However the said writ petition was

withdrawn on 25th September, 1996 with liberty to file another writ

petition. After waiting for another three years, the writ petition from

dismissal whereof the present appeal arises, was filed in the year 1999. In

the writ petition, the appellant for the first time contended that the inquiry

was conducted in haste and was an eyewash and he was not allowed any

defence representative. It was also alleged that admission of guilt had been

procured from him on the assurance that a lenient view shall be taken.

4. The learned Single Judge has held that the plea of assurance that he

shall be dealt with leniently was clearly an afterthought and the appellant

had failed to substantiate the same; that the appellant had not even named

anyone who had given any assurance as alleged; that the appellant at all

stages had been admitting his guilt and financial irregularity and the only

plea was of circumstantial compulsion. Accordingly, the writ petition was

dismissed.

5. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the

amended memo of appeal which the appellant was permitted to file. The

counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to ground „T‟ in the

memo of appeal where it is contended, that Rule 19 of the Syndicate Bank

Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 requiring

consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) " wherever

necessary" in respect of all disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle, has

not been complied with. He has contended that the proceedings against the

appellant are liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

6. We do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention. Rule 19 relied

upon, from a bare reading thereof does not make consultation with the

CVC mandatory and such consultation has been provided for "wherever

necessary". In the present case the appellant has at each and every stage

right from the response to charge sheet till the filing of the review

application admitted his guilt. The counsel for the appellant has also been

unable to show as to why such consultation with the CVC was necessary

or as to how the appellant has been prejudiced from such consultation

having not been done. We have recently in W.P.(C) No.7890/2011 titled

Central Board of Trustees v. M. Vijayaraj decided on 8th November, 2011

held such consultation to be not mandatory.

7. Otherwise a perusal of the proceedings before the IO, before the

Disciplinary Authority, before the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing

Authority support the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge of the

appellant having utterly failed to establish any case of any assurance as

alleged having been meted out to him. We are otherwise also of the

opinion that no such assurance could in law have been given. Once the

appellant is found to have indulged in falsification/fabrication of records

and in misappropriation of the funds of the respondent Bank which are

public monies, the appellant did not deserve any sympathy. The law in this

regard is no longer res integra. It has been held in (i) Damoh Panna Sagar

Rural Regional Bank v. M.L. Jain (2005) 10 SCC 84, (ii) State Bank of

India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212, (iii) State of

Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580, (iv) Punjab &

Sind Bank v. Daya Singh (2010) 11 SCC 233 & (v) State Bank of

Bikaner & Jaipur v. N.C. Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 that cases of such

nature by employees of the Bank are to be severely dealt with.

8. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal; the same is

dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 23, 2011 pp