Mrs. Sneh Gupta vs Syndicate Bank & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 6313 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of decision: 19th October, 2012

+                                W.P.(C) No.3481/1999

       MRS. SNEH GUPTA                                        ..... Petitioner
                    Through:           None.

                                    Versus

    SYNDICATE BANK & ORS.                     ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Jagat Arora, Adv.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. None has appeared for the petitioner; considering that the writ petition

is of the year 1999, it is not deemed expedient to await the petitioner. With

the assistance of the counsel for the respondent Bank, the records have been

perused.

2. The petition impugns, the order dated 14.11.1998 of the Disciplinary

Authority of the respondent Bank imposing the punishment of compulsory

retirement from service of the Bank on the petitioner, as also the order dated

04.02.1999 of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the

petitioner. The petition also seeks mandamus to the respondent Bank to

reinstate the petitioner in the same capacity in the Bank with all

consequential benefits.

3. Rule was issued on 28.05.1999. The petition was dismissed for non

appearance of the petitioner on 05.05.2003. The petitioner, in the year 2010

applied for restoration and though it was held in the order dated 20.05.2010

on the said application that the petitioner is grossly negligent but still the

writ petition was restored to its original position with a warning to the

petitioner to remain careful in future. Notwithstanding the same, the

petitioner has chosen not to appear.

4. The petitioner joined the respondent Bank as a Clerk on 26.10.1973

and was on 03.06.1985 selected as Officer Grade-I. While working in the

Asaf Ali Road Branch of the Bank, the petitioner was in the year 1994

assigned charge of the Stock Investment Department of the Bank. Though

the petitioner was on 07.06.1997 transferred from Asaf Ali Road Branch to

the Chandni Chowk Branch but she was on 29.10.1997 placed under

suspension and on 12.12.1997 charged with, while functioning as Assistant

Manager, Asaf Ali Road during the period between 16.06.1992 and

07.06.1997 and while supervising the Stock Invest Department during the

period between 01.08.1994 and 07.06.1997, having:

"(1) Allowed Sri Praveen Kumar Gupta, a Clerk at Asaf Ali Road Branch to handle / attend clerical work relating to SI department when he was not allotted the work relating to the said department and / or when some other Clerk was allotted with the department.

(2) Allowed Sri Gupta to surreptitiously operate various SI Accounts standing in his name, in the name of his family members and friends and allowed the merger of certain SI accounts with certain other SI accounts against the rules of the Stock Invest Scheme.

(3) Allowed / facilitated Sri Gupta to commit various frauds in the SI A/Cs and caused financial loss to the Bank. You by misusing your official position facilitated Sri Gupta to commit various frauds by resorting to manipulations, falsification of records etc., and caused derivation of undue pecuniary benefits by him / his family members / friends.

In the process you also committed / caused to be committed various other irregularities more fully described in the Statement of imputations of Misconduct appended below: By your above acts, you failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity and honesty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of the status of the Bank Officer and thus contravened Regulation No.3(1) read with Regulation No.24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976."

5. An Inquiry Officer was appointed who submitted a report dated

28.08.1998, finding the petitioner grossly negligent in performing her

responsibilities for a continuous period of three years and thereby facilitating

perpetuation of fraud, giving rise to suspicion about her integrity and

honesty in discharging her duties and exhibiting conduct unbecoming of her

status as a Bank Officer. Each of the charges were found to be proved as the

petitioner had failed to safeguard the interest of the Bank.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, the Disciplinary Authority

of the Bank imposed punishment aforesaid of compulsory retirement and the

departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

7. The challenge by the petitioner in this writ petition, is on the ground:

(i) that her past record was not only good but outstanding and she

had never been communicated any adverse remark;

(ii) that the officers of the Bank had been assigned number of

responsibilities which can be discharged speedily and

effectively only when the lower functionaries in the department

are also efficient and effective - the final output of a particular

department is by way of a collective and joint effort and is

possible only when trust and belief is honoured and maintained

amongst the officers and employees of the department;

(iii) that in the present case, the trust reposed by the petitioner on

Mr. P.K. Gupta working as a Clerk in the department and

posted there since prior to the joining of the petitioner, had been

violated;

(iv) that the Stock Investment Department was introduced in the

Bank for the first time in November, 1992 only and in 1994

when petitioner was given charge thereof, majority of the

officers in the Bank including the petitioner had no experience

about the Stock Investment System;

(v) that besides Stock Investment Department of which the

petitioner had no earlier experience, the petitioner was also

shouldering the responsibilities of the Deposit Department;

where she was required to deal with Vikas Cash Certificate

including NRI Fixed Deposits, Social Security Deposits,

Recurring Deposit, Suvidha Deposit etc. besides CBSE

Examination Fee and miscellaneous deposits. She was also

required to look after the work of Tax Deducted at Source;

(vi) that Mr. P.K. Gupta was an expert in dealing with the complete

work of the Stock Investment Department and the petitioner

trusted him and which has proved fatal to her;

(vii) that no connivance between the petitioner and the said Mr. P.K.

Gupta has been established;

(viii) that the petitioner has not gained anything in the matter;

(ix) that the petitioner though accepts her negligence to the extent of

trusting Mr. P.K. Gupta, contends that for such negligence she

cannot be punished with compulsory retirement;

(x) that no action has been taken against her predecessors and

successors on the said post, though they were also negligent in

checking the said Mr. P.K. Gupta;

(xi) that no action has been taken against other higher officers also;

(xii) that though Mr. P.K. Gupta earlier also in the year 1993 had

been awarded the penalty of stoppage of next three increments

with cumulative effect but he was allowed to again commit the

fraud; and

(xiii) that though before the Inquiry Officer connivance of the

petitioner with Mr. P.K. Gupta was disbelieved but while

writing the report, a finding to the said effect had also been

given.

8. Though the counsel for the respondent Bank states that a counter

affidavit was filed but the same is neither on record nor any noting of the

same having been filed is on record. Be that as it may, the petitioner having

filed the entire record of the Disciplinary Proceedings, the same has been

perused.

9. The aforesaid narration would show that the challenge is not on the

ground of any defect in the Disciplinary Proceedings but only on the ground

of proportionality. The question which arises is, whether in the face of the

admission of the petitioner of negligence in checking her subordinate Mr.

P.K. Gupta and on the plea of it being essential for an officer in the Bank to,

in performance of his / her duties trust the subordinates, punishment meted

out to the petitioner of compulsory retirement can be said to be

disproportionate.

10. The Supreme Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K.

Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 reiterated that the jurisdiction to interfere with

the disciplinary matters of punishment cannot be equated with an appellate

jurisdiction and that it is appropriate to remember that the power to impose

penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the Competent Authority and

if there has been an inquiry consistent with the Rules and in accordance with

the principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of

justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Competent

Authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the

proved misconduct, the Court does not have the power to substitute its own

discretion for that of the Authority. It is only when the punishment imposed

shocks the conscience of the Court that this Court should mould the relief

either directing the Authority to reconsider the penalty or in exceptional and

rare cases itself impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in

support thereof. The same principles were reiterated recently in State Bank

of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584.

11. I am of the considered view that once the Bank, in distributing the

duties had made the petitioner responsible for checking the functioning of

her subordinates, the petitioner cannot on the plea of trust wriggle out of the

said duty. If the Bank, while distributing the duties amongst its employees,

was to trust the employee of the level at which Mr. P.K. Gupta was working,

the post of the petitioner would have been redundant. However, the Bank

deemed it fit not to stop the buck at the post which Mr. P.K. Gupta was

occupying but with the petitioner and none of the grounds aforesaid on

which the petitioner challenges the order of the Disciplinary Authority and

the Appellate Authority can come to the rescue of the petitioner. If the said

arguments were to be accepted, it would virtually mean that none of the

higher officers of the Bank who are not personally handling the transactions

would be responsible and the entire hierarchy established by the Bank would

collapse. The Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Dinkar

Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212 observed that every officer / employee of a Bank

is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and to

discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence

and that good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of

every officer / employee of the Bank and that if this is not done the

confidence of the public / depositors would be impaired. It was further held

that if the charged employee holds a position of trust and deals with public

money, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently and the

misconduct has to be dealt with iron hands. It was yet further held that

simply because the officer has rendered long years of service is no ground

for showing sympathy or generosity. Mention may also be made of

Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank Vs. P.C.

Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 laying down that lesser punishment to a co-

delinquent is not a ground for interference and reiterating that the

punishment has to be shockingly disproportionate for the Court to interfere.

I may in this regard notice that the extreme punishment of dismissal from

service has not been meted out to the petitioner.

12. No merit is thus found in the grounds on which the punishment

imposed on the petitioner is challenged and the petition is dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J OCTOBER 19, 2012 'gsr'