Anoop Tariyal vs State Bank Of Patiala & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 3878 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.4642/2015

%                                                           15th May, 2015

ANOOP TARIYAL                                                 ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Asish Nischal, Advocate.


                          Versus

STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ANR.                 ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, petitioner questions the orders passed against him by the

departmental authorities; Disciplinary Authority dated 28.3.2014 and the

Appellate Authority dated 30.7.2014; imposing the punishment of dismissal

from service upon the petitioner. Petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on

18.5.2013 containing five charges. The main charge against the petitioner

was that he illegally debited the accounts of the customers and credited the

accounts of his family members. Therefore, there were fraudulent and

unauthorized withdrawals from the customers' accounts. The relevant

charges I to II in this regard read as under:-

"I) Misutilization of customer's debit authority given in good faith thereby tarnishing the image of the Bank in the eyes of public:

i) You got blank debit slip signed from Smt. Ashama Khatun in good faith, holder of saving bank account no.65143412226 on 14/07/2012 and misutilized her account by debiting Rs.2000/- from it and credited the saving bank account no.55140441720 of your son Sh. Ajay Tariyal under your ID. The vouchers' of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

ii) You again got blank debit slip singed from Smt. Ashama Khatun in good faith, holder of saving bank account no-65143412226 on 17/07/2012 and misutilized her account by debiting Rs. 19500/- from it and credited the saving bank account no-65076539814 of your daughter Ms. Neha Tariyal under your ID. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

iii) As per complaint dated 11.08.2012 by Sh. Aiub Mia, holder of saving bank account no-65098807278, you made less cash payment by Rs. 61500/- while making payment of cheque no- 352225 of Rs. 121500/- tendered for payment on 24/07/2012 by Sh. Aiub Mia, thus musutilized his money.

iv) You got blank debit slip signed from Sh. Aiub Mia in good faith, holder of saving bank account no-65098807278 on 07/04/2012 by Rs. 10000/- and credited the saving bank account no-65076539814 of your daughter, Ms. Neha Tariyal, under your ID. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

v) You got blank debit slip signed from Sh. Aiub Mia in good faith, holder of saving bank account no-65098807278 again on 14/06/2012 and misutilized his account by debiting Rs. 10000/- from it and credited the saving bank account no-55140441720 of your son, Sh. Ajay Triyal under your ID. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

vi) You got blank debit slip signed from Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma in good faith, holder of saving bank account no- 65040421665 on 21/05/2012 and misutilized his account by debiting Rs. 10000/- from it and credited the saving bank account no-65076539814 of your daughter Ms. Neha Tariyal, under your ID. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

II) Borrowing money from Bank's customers in contravention of Bank's norms :

i) You borrowed Rs. 10000/- from Sh. Rahul Kumar on 12/06/2012, holder of saving bank account no-65073141852 and credited the saving bank account no-55140441720 of your son, Sh. Ajay Tariyal under your ID in contravention of Bank's norms. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

ii) You borrowed Rs. 10000/- from Sh. Surender Singh on 01/09/2011, holder of saving bank account no-65037451528 and credited the saving bank account no-65076539814 of your daughter, Ms. Neha Tariyal, under your ID in contravention of Bank's norms. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

iii) You borrowed Rs. 10000/- from Sh. Harender Singh on 11/02/2012, holder of saving bank account no-65107738477 and credited the saving bank account no-65076539814 of your daughter, Ms. Neha Tariyal, under your ID in contravention of Bank's norms.

iv) You borrowed Rs. 5000/- from the current account no- 65049431030 of M/s Techno Empire on 28/03/2012 and credited the saving bank account no-65076539814 of your daughter, Ms. Neha Tariyal, under your ID in contravention of Bank's norms. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

II) Fraudulent and Unauthorized withdrawal from customer's accounts :

i) You unauthorizedly debited sacing bank account no- 65076539814 of your daughter, Ms. Neha Tariyal, on 19/07/2012 by Rs. 21500/- and credited saving bank account no-65143412226 of Smt. Ashama Khatun under your ID and without having any debit authority. The vouchers of the transaction has been prepared in your handwriting. It depicts that you have debited the account in order to refund amount earlier unauthorizedly debited from saving bank account no-65143412226 of Smt. Ashama Khatun on 14/07/2012 and 17/07/2012.

ii) You debited saving bank account no-65046065790 of Ratnesh Kumar Prajapati by Rs. 200/- by issuance of duplicate ATM card on 17/07/2012 and did not credit the amount to branch commission account. Also no duplicate ATM card was issued to the customer.

iii) You debited saving bank account no-65107443778 of Birender Pal by Rs. 200/- for issuance of duplicate ATM card on 17/07/2012 and did not credit the amount to branch commission account. Also no duplicate ATM card was issued to the customer."

2. The other charges pertain to petitioner remaining

unauthorizedly absent from duty for more than 30 days in the relevant

period when these frauds were detected and failure to comply with the

undertaking given earlier by the petitioner not to repeat any act of

misconduct in future.

3. Departmental proceedings in this case were held as the

petitioner/charged official denied the charges. The Enquiry Officer

thereafter has given his report dated 12.11.2013 holding the petitioner guilty

on the basis of depositions of witnesses of the respondent no.1/Bank and the

various documents filed by the respondent no.1/Bank showing the

unauthorized debits/withdrawals by the petitioner from the accounts of the

customers.

4. The most important aspect to be noted is that whereas the

Bank/department proved its case by depositions of two witnesses and filing

of the relevant documents with respect to the illegal debits/withdrawals,

petitioner/charged official did not even have the courage of conviction to

step into the witness box to depose in his own favour. Since the petitioner

did not depose in his own favour, obviously he feared the standing test of

cross-examination which would have exposed him further. In law, issues

before the departmental authorities are proved by preponderance of

probabilities. Strict rules of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to

departmental proceedings. Therefore, considering the evidence led by the

respondent no.1/Bank, and the fact that petitioner failed to lead any

evidence, the departmental authorities were fully justified in arriving at the

conclusion of guilt against the petitioner.

5. It may be noted that against the petitioner earlier departmental

proceedings were held and in which petitioner was imposed the penalty of

removal from service but his case was considered liberally and he was

reinstated on his undertaking of not to repeat any misconduct in future.

Petitioner is therefore clearly a person who is guilty of repeated misconduct

during his services with the respondent no.1/Bank.

6. The law with respect to scope of hearing before this Court in a

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the orders

of the departmental authorities is well settled. This Court does not sit as an

appellate court to re-apprise the findings and conclusions arrived at by the

departmental authorities once the departmental authorities take one possible

and plausible view. This Court can only interfere if the findings of the

departmental authorities are totally perverse or are against the law/rules of

the employer. Two other reasons for interfering with the decisions of the

departmental authorities are not following the principles of natural justice

and punishment being disproportionate.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that authors of all the

complaints made to the respondent no.1/Bank with respect to illegal

debits/withdrawals from the accounts of the customers were not brought as

witnesses by the respondent no.1/Bank and the complaints were only proved

by the officers of the respondent no.1/Bank and this could not have been

legally done.

This argument has no substance because not only the strict rules

of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to departmental proceedings, but

also nothing has been urged before me by the petitioner to show that the

petitioner claimed in the departmental proceedings that the complaints made

to the respondent no.1/Bank contained forged signatures of the customers.

In any case, since the issues before the departmental authorities are proved

on preponderance of probabilities and the department has led evidence,

whereas the petitioner did not lead any evidence and did not even step into

the witness box for standing the test of cross-examination, the findings and

conclusions of the departmental authorities therefore cannot be interfered

with by this Court. As already stated above, petitioner is a repeat offender

and earlier departmental proceedings were also held against the petitioner

and in which after taking lenient view petitioner was reinstated in service but

it appears that the petitioner is no wiser.

8. Counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance upon the

judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case

of S. Rajamanickam Vs. The Secretary to Government, Rural

Development and Panchayatraj Department, The Director of Rural

Development and the District Collector (2011) 8 MLJ 225 to argue that in

the present case documents being complaints made by the customers should

be held to be not proved as authors were not summoned, however, the

judgment relied upon by the petitioner does not help the petitioner because it

has been now held by the Supreme Court that in departmental proceedings

strict provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply. Also, the judgment

in the case of S. Rajamanickam (supra) appears to be in the fact where sole

evidence of the report of Director of Government Examination existed,

whereas in the present case plethora of documentary evidence was filed and

proved by the department to show illegal actions of the petitioner. The

judgment relied upon by the petitioner therefore does not help the petitioner.

9. The present is a fit case of petitioner being removed from

service because banking services are based upon the complete confidence

and trust of the customers. Employees of banks cannot make unauthorized

entries and withdraw moneys from the accounts of the customers, and hope

not to be subjected to departmental proceedings. Even earlier the petitioner

was proceeded against and yet he continued with his misconduct.

Obviously, petitioner seems to feel that he is above any discipline and that

he can commit frauds and get away with the same.

10. Dismissed.

MAY 15, 2015                                     VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne