Renu Aggarwal vs Icici Bank Ltd & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 945 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +      RFA No.161/2009

     %                      Date of decision : 10th February, 2012


         RENU AGGARWAL                      ..... Appellant
                     Through : Mr. C.M. Jayakumar, Adv. for
                               Mr. C. Hari Shankar, Adv.

                   versus

         ICICI BANK LTD & ORS                 ..... Respondents
                        Through : Mr. Rishi Kapoor and
                                  Mr. Pankaj, Advs.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                              JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree of

the learned Trial Court whereby the learned Trial Court

dismissed the appellant's suit.

2. The appellant was working as a Manager, ICICI Bank,

Vikas Puri Branch. On 27th April, 2000, the respondent bank

issued a chargesheet to the appellant containing the following

charges:-

i. Allowing LBD facility for selected customer on routing basis exceeding powers without obtaining permission/sanction which are accommodative in nature and are acts highly prejudicial to the interest of the bank, which if proved, will be misconduct under clause 3(i) read with clause 17 of the Bank of Madura Officer Employees Conduct Regulations.

ii. Maintaining the LBD transactions in manual ledgers although LBD module was available in the system and not making the entries in the manual ledger relating to the Mastan group accounts in order to suppress the acts which are unbecoming of an officer of the bank, which if proved, will be misconduct under clause 3(i) read with clause 17 of the Bank of Madura Officer Employees Conduct Regulations.

iii. Indulging in fraudulent activities or debiting various customers accounts without the knowledge in order to accommodate selective customers are acts highly prejudicial to the interest of the bank, which if proved, will be misconduct under clause 3(i) read with clause 17 of the Bank of Madura Officer Employees Conduct Regulations.

iv. Making fictitious entries in "GL : Local Bills Discounted Account" by direct entries as if cheques were purchased are acts unbecoming of an officer of the bank, which if proved, will be misconduct under clause 3(i) read with clause 17 of the Bank of Madura Officer Employees Conduct Regulations.

v. Allowing TOD to customers far exceeding discretionary powers without obtaining sanction/permission are acts highly prejudicial to the interest of the bank, which if proved, will be misconduct under clause 3(i) read with clause 17 of the Bank of Madura Officer Employees Conduct Regulations.

vi. Allowing drawals against uncleared effects without authority are acts highly prejudicial to the interest of the bank, which if proved, will be misconduct under clause 3(i) read with clause 17 of the Bank of Madura Officer Employees Conduct Regulations.

vii. Allowing excess drawings to certain customers beyond the powers, are acts highly prejudicial to the interest of the bank, which if proved, will be misconduct under clause 3(i) read

with clause 17 of the Bank of Madura Officer Employees Conduct Regulations.

3. The respondent bank appointed an Inquiry Officer to

conduct the inquiry into the matter. After completion of the

inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 17th July,

2001 holding all the charges against the appellant as proved

except the charge of excess withdrawals which was partly

proved. Acting on the said report, the respondent bank

dismissed the appellant from service on 12th December, 2001.

4. The appellant instituted the suit seeking the

quashing/setting aside of the charge sheet dated 27th April,

2007, the inquiry report dated 17th July, 2001 and order dated

25th August, 2001 issued by the Disciplinary Authority; and re-

instatement with all consequential benefits including arrears of

pay and allowances of `9,50,000/-.

5. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial

Court:-

"1. Whether suit is not maintainable being barred by provisions of Specific Relief Act? OPD.

2. Whether suit has not been valued properly for purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD.

3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD.

4. Whether departmental proceedings are not subject to judicial review as defendant was private bank? OPD.

5. Whether bank has legally adjusted plaintiff's gratuity and FDR against the dues of Sh. Mastan? OPD.

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to an order of quashing charge sheet enquiry report and the order dated 25.08.2001? OPP.

7. Whether plaintiff is entitled to order of reinstatement and payment of allowances amounting to Rs.9,50,000/-? OPP.

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% or any other rate?

9. Whether plaintiff is entitled to return of FDR? OPP.

10. Relief."

6. The findings of the learned Trial Court are as under:-

6.1 With respect to issue No.1, the learned Trial Court held

that the respondent bank being a private sector bank, the

contract of personal service was not enforceable under Section

14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and, therefore, the appellant

cannot seek reinstatement. The learned Trial Court held that

the appellant's remedy is a claim for wrongful termination.

6.2 With respect to issued No.2, the learned Trial Court held

the suit to be not properly valued for the purposes of Court

fees and jurisdiction. It was held that the appellant has not

separately valued all the reliefs and even on the valuation of

`9,50,000/-, there was a short deposit of Court fees of

`.1,600/-.

6.3 With respect to issue No.3, the learned Trial Court held

that the suit was not barred by limitation.

6.4 With respect to issue No.4, the learned Trial Court held

that the departmental proceedings were not subject to judicial

review except in case of excess of jurisdiction or violation of

the principles of natural justice or any dishonest act actuated

by bad faith. The learned Trial Court held that neither of the

above grounds could be proved by the appellant. It was

further held that the Civil Court could not sit as a Court of

Appeal from the findings of the departmental proceedings

6.5 With respect to issue Nos.5 and 9, the learned Trial Court

held that the appellant has not clearly stated the amount of

gratuity and FDR to which she was entitled. The appellant has

not given the particulars of FDR i.e. amount of FDR as well as

number of FDRs. The learned Trial Court further held that the

respondent bank was justified in adjusting the FDRs on account

of loss suffered due to the illegal actions of the appellant.

6.6 With respect to issue Nos.6, 7 and 8, the learned Trial

Court held that in the absence of verification and supporting

affidavit, there was no valid plaint in the eyes of law and the

appellant acted mala fide in allowing the opening of accounts

of a particular group of companies. The charges against the

appellant were duly proved. The learned Trial Court further

observed that the department also gave a report against the

appellant and the appellant did not make any comment to

contradict the finding of the report. The learned Trial Court

further held that the appellant exceeded the discretionary

powers with respect to the five accounts. The learned Trial

Court held that no permission was sought from the higher

authorities in this regard. The learned Trial Court held that

upon dishonour of a discounted cheque, the account holder

was required to deposit the amount with interest to the bank

but the appellant, in several cases, did not charge such

interest. The learned Trial Court held that the acts of the

appellant caused loss to the respondent bank. The learned

Trial Court held that the appellant was not entitled to any

amount whatsoever from the respondent bank.

7. With respect to findings of the learned Trial Court on

issue No.1, learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute

that a contract of the personal service is not enforceable under

Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act and, therefore, the

appellant cannot seek reinstatement.

8. With respect to issue No.2, the learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the suit has been properly valued for

the purposes of court fees. However, the learned counsel for

the appellant admits the short deposit of the Court-fees of

`1,600/-. It is well settled by the judgment of this Court in the

case of Rampur Distillery and Chemicals Co. Ltd. v.

Union of India, 57 (1995) DLT 642 that the plaintiff has to

separately value all the reliefs made in the suit and has to pay

separate Court-fees thereon. In para 5 of the plaint, the

appellant has neither valued all the reliefs in the plaint nor

paid separate court fees thereon. In that view of the matter,

there is no infirmity in the finding of the learned trial court with

respect to issue No.2.

9. With respect to issues No.5 and 9, learned counsel for the

appellant admits that the appellant has not clearly stated the

amount of gratuity and FDR and has also not given the

particulars of the FDR. However, learned counsel submits that

the respondent bank was not justified in adjusting the FDRs.

With respect to issues No.4, 6, 7 and 8, learned counsel for the

appellant admits that the appellant exceeded her jurisdiction

due to which the Bank suffered the loss. It is submitted that

the actions of the appellant were bonafide and, therefore, the

respondent was not entitled to recover any amount from the

appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant refers and

relies on paragraph 5.12 of the application filed by the

respondent Bank against the debtors before the DRT, in which

it is stated that the respondent Bank acted in good faith. The

submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of

merit. The appellant has admitted that she exceeded the

discretionary powers with respect to five account holders (M/s.

Taneja Plastic, M/s. Lovely Gifts Centre, M/s. Bhupinder Singh

and Company, M/s. Cosmic Chic, and Shri Anil Sharma) which

were previously at the Karol Bagh Branch and that discounting

of the cheque ultimately resulted into losses of several lakhs to

the respondent bank. The appellant has also admitted in cross-

examination that she failed to enter LBDs favouring Mastan

Group of Accounts in LBD ledgers, which shows the mala fide.

The respondents have led sufficient evidence before the trial

court to prove that the appellant's action in exceeding her

jurisdiction was malafide. There is no infirmity in the finding of

the learned Trial Court on the aforesaid issues.

10. There is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby

dismissed for the reasons stated above. No costs.

J.R. MIDHA, J

FEBRUARY 10, 2012 aj