Delhi High Court
Anoop Tariyal vs State Bank Of Patiala & Anr. on 7 July, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision :07 July , 2015
+ LPA 362/2015
Anoop Tariyal ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Ashish Nischal, Adv.
versus
State Bank of Patiala & Anr. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Kapur, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 15th May, 2015 whereby the writ
petition filed by the appellant questioning the departmental proceedings and
punishment of dismissal from service was dismissed, Anoop Tariyal prefers
the present appeal.
2. The charges against Anoop Tariyal were (i) misutilization of the
customer's debit authority given in good faith thereby tarnishing the image
of the bank in the eyes of public; (ii) borrowing money from bank's
customers in contravention of bank's norm; (iii) fraudulent and unauthorized
withdrawal from customer's accounts, (iv) unauthorized absence from duty
for more than 30 days without intimation in the relevant period when these
frauds were detected and (v) failure to comply with the undertaking.
3. The two contentions of learned counsel for the appellant are that in
none of the cases the complainants were examined to prove the charges and
the show cause notice dated 8th March, 2014 with regard to the penalty of
dismissal prejudged the issue and disciplinary authority had already made up
its mind to impose the penalty of dismissal from service.
4. A perusal of the inquiry proceedings would reveal that the bank
examined its two witnesses who brought the relevant documents with regard
to unauthorized and illegal withdrawals. The bank also proved that Anoop
Tariyal debited the saving bank account No.65076539814 of his daughter
Ms. Neha Tariyal on 19th July, 2012 by `12500/- and credited the saving
bank account No.65143412226 of Smt. Ashama Khatun under his own ID
and without any debit authority. Further evidence was led to show that
blank debit slip signed by Aiub Mia and Vinod Kumar Sharma in good faith
were misutilized and the amounts so debited from the two accounts were
credited to the account of the son and daughter of Anoop Tariyal. As a
matter of fact, Anoop Tariyal did not even examine himself in defence and
led no defence evidence.
5. It is trite law that the standard of proof required in departmental
proceedings is as per preponderance of probability and not beyond
reasonable doubt unlike a criminal trial. From the evidence led on record, it
was clearly proved that Anoop Tariyal had a propensity to commit repeated
misconduct for the reason that in an earlier departmental proceeding also a
penalty of removal from service was proposed to be imposed, however he
was reinstated on his undertaking not to repeat any misconduct in future and
despite the undertaking he again misconducted himself.
6. The non-examination of the complainants to prove the charges alleged
against Anoop Tariyal do not vitiate the proceedings inasmuch as the
charges against Anoop Tariyal could also be proved from the documentary
evidence which has been done by the responsible officers of the bank on the
basis of documents produced. In the decision reported as (1998) 8 SCC 572
Superintendent, Govt.T.B. Sanatorium and Anr. Vs. J. Srinivasan the
Supreme Court while dealing with a similar situation held that even though
the complainant or her husband were not examined at the regular enquiry
there was other evidence including the evidence of the co-worker and co-
patient upon which the finding recording against the delinquent could be
sustained. It was further held that the Court cannot go into the adequacy of
the evidence and it can interfere only if it is a case of no evidence.
7. The plea that in the show cause notice dated 8th March, 2015 the
disciplinary authority had prejudged the penalty to be imposed while issuing
show cause notice is also without any basis as while giving the show cause
notice the proposed penalty is required to be informed to the delinquent
officer so that he is not taken by surprise and is able to respond to the show
cause notice adequately. The Division Bench of this Court in 2012 II AD
(DELHI) 263 Satyadin Maurya Vs. Directorate of Education and Ors.
rejecting a similar contention, held that merely because punishment is
proposed in the show cause notice the disciplinary authority cannot be said
to have pre-judged the matter or that the same results in the representation
thereagainst being considered with a closed mind or infructuous. The
opinion formed at that stage is a tentative opinion formed only on the basis
of the record of the inquiry proceedings and subject to the consideration of
the representation by the employee thereagainst. Formation of the said
opinion does not stop the disciplinary authority from forming another
opinion or changing the earlier opinion after considering the representation
of the employee. Rather such a provision is favourable to the employee and
cannot be treated as bad in law.
8. Consequently, we find no merit in the present appeal. The appeal is
dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
JULY 07, 2015
'v mittal'
