Delhi High Court
Dhara Singh Ex Clerk Of Andhra Bank vs Union Bank Of India And Anr on 6 July, 2023
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 06.07.2023
% LPA 528/2023 & CM APPL. 33639/2023, CM APPL. 33640/2023
DHARA SINGH EX CLERK OF ANDHRA BANK
..... Appellant
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Tania
Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh,
Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya
Kaushik and Ms. Aliza Alam,
Advocates.
versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Arora and Mr. Niraj
Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is arising out of an judgment dated 08.05.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 12285/2009 titled Dhara
Singh Vs. Union Bank of India dismissing the writ petition preferred by the
appellant against the order dated 22.11.2008 by which the penalty of
compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon the appellant, as well as the
LPA 528/2023 Page 1 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
order dated 22.04.2009 by which the appeal of the appellant before the
Appellate Authority was also dismissed.
2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this
Court was an employee serving in Andhra Bank. He was subjected to
disciplinary proceedings under the By-partite settlement dated 10.04.2002
(Disciplinary Regulations).
3. The facts also reveal that the Andhra Bank was amalgamated with
Union Bank of India with effect from 01.04.2022.
4. The appellant at the relevant point of time was working as a clerk at
R. K. Puram Branch of the erstwhile Andhra Bank and was in charge of
receiving cash deposit from the customers at the cash counter.
5. On 10.04.2007, Sh. Parminder Singh - a customer who was holding
Account No. 11046, deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000 in his account and an
acknowledgment/ counterfoil of the pay-in-slip, was given to the customer
by the appellant.
6. The appellant did not deposit the amount in the account of Sh.
Parminder Singh and, on 01.05.2007, Sh. Parminder Singh came to the Bank
and informed the authorities that he has deposited Rs. 5,000/- in his bank
account on 10.04.2007, however, the same amount has not been credited in
his account. He formally lodged a complaint and informed the Bank
Manager. It is was brought to the notice of the authorities that the appellant
LPA 528/2023 Page 2 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
did receive the amount of Rs. 5,000/- from Sh. Parminder Singh and did not
deposit the same in the account of Sh. Parminder Singh nor in the sundry
account maintained by the Bank.
7. The appellant, only when it was brought to the notice of the
authorities that the amount has not been deposited in the account of Sh.
Parminder Singh, informed the authorities that the account of Sh. Parminder
Singh was inoperative. After a complaint was lodged by Sh. Parminder
Singh, the appellant deposited the amount on 01.05.2007 in the sundry
account.
8. On 05.05.2007, the Assistant General Manager informed the General
Manager regarding the conduct of the appellant and regarding the
discrepancy in the cash receipt of the appellant and the matter was in-turn
forwarded by the General Manager to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Andhra
Bank, Vigilance Department, Hyderabad on 16.05.2007.
9. The appellant was placed under suspension on 20.06.2007 and finally
a chargesheet was issued on 22.09.2007. The appellant was granted time to
file reply to the chargesheet and he did file a reply denying the charges
leveled against him. The reply was filed on 03.012.2007. The disciplinary
authority appointed an enquiry office and the enquiry officer after following
the principles of natural justice and fairplay submitted an enquiry report
holding the charged as proved on 23.06.2008.
10. The findings of the enquiry officer were communicated on 26.11.2008
LPA 528/2023 Page 3 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
and the disciplinary authority finally passed an order of compulsory
retirement on 22.11.2008. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order
preferred an appeal on 26.03.2009 before the competent Appellant
Authority, and vide order dated 22.04.2009, the appeal was dismissed by the
competent disciplinary authority.
11. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2008 of
punishment of compulsory retirement and dismissing the appeal vide order
dated 22.04.2009 had preferred a writ petition before this Court and the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition against which the
present LPA has been filed.
12. The operative paragraphs i.e. Paragraph Nos. 34 to 40, of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge read as under:
"34. The mere fact that the customer in question had deposed
that since the money had been credited to his account and that
he had no grievance against anyone, does not in any manner
exonerate the petitioner from the misconduct committed by him.
It was the responsibility of the petitioner to immediately bring
to the notice of the Branch Head/his superior officers the fact
with respect to the amount having been received by him, which
could not be credited for the reason of the account being
inoperative/ dormant.
35. Supreme Court has emphasized time and again that a bank
officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and
integrity, as he deals with the money of the depositors and the
customers. Thus, in the case of Chairman and Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C.
LPA 528/2023 Page 4 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
Kakkar, reported as (2003) 4 SCC 364, Supreme Court has
held as follows:
"14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher
standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the
money of the depositors and the customers. Every
officer/employee of the bank is required to take all
possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to
discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty,
devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is
unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and
discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every
officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this
Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager
v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 SCC
(L&S) 1194] it is no defence available to say that there
was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the
officer/employee acted without authority. The very
discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is
dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting
and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond
one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a
misconduct. The charges against the employee were not
casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not
appear to have been kept in view by the High Court."
36. The defence on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner
lacked proper knowledge about the banking and computer
environment, was rightly rejected by the Enquiry Officer. As
held by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner having so many
years of experience, cannot take shelter under such a plea. The
Enquiry Officer has categorically held that it was the
responsibility of the petitioner, being the Cashier to adhere to
the laid down procedures and system. The Enquiry Officer has
further held that if the petitioner had any difficulty, then the
petitioner ought to have sought the assistance of other
LPA 528/2023 Page 5 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
colleagues at the branch, instead of keeping the cash with him.
The petitioner ought to have reported to the Branch Manager,
so that the amount in question could be accounted for.
37. Once the enquiry has been held properly and Principles of
Natural Justice have been followed, then this Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, would not sit as an appellate authority over the
findings of the departmental authorities. Thus, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of
India and Others, (2020) 9 SCC 471 has held as follows:
"25. The learned counsel for the appellant spent
considerable time taking us through the various evidence
on record with the intention of highlighting lacunae and
contradictions. We feel that such an exercise was in vain,
as the threshold of interference in the present
proceedings is quite high. The power of judicial review
discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or
32, or when sitting in appeal under Article 136, is
distinct from the appellate power exercised by a
departmental appellate authority. It would be gainsaid
that judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-
making process, and not the merits of the decision itself.
Judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and
not fairness of conclusion. It ought to be used to correct
manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result
in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross
unreasonableness of outcome. [State of A.P. v. Mohd.
Nasrullah Khan, (2006) 2 SCC 373, para 11 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 316]
26. These principles are succinctly elucidated by a three-
Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC
LPA 528/2023 Page 6 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
749, para 12 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] in the following
extract: (SCC pp. 759-60, paras 12-13)
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but
a review of the manner in which the decision is made.
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that
the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily
correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is
conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant,
the Court/Tribunal concerned is to determine whether the
inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules
of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings
or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction,
power and authority to reach a finding of fact or
conclusion. But that finding must be based on some
evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act
nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply
to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts
that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom,
the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the
delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The
Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not
act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence
and to arrive at its own independent findings on the
evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the
authority held the proceedings against the delinquent
officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural
justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the
mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding
reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no
reasonable person would have ever reached, the
Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the
LPA 528/2023 Page 7 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate
to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has
coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the
nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict
proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are
not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of
evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the
Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of
India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC
364] this Court held at SCR pp. 728-29 that if the
conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached
by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from
patent error on the face of the record or based on no
evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
27. These parameters have been consistently reiterated
by this Court in a catena of decisions, including: (i) State
of T.N. v. S. Subramaniam [State of T.N. v. S.
Subramaniam, (1996) 7 SCC 509 : 1996 SCC (L&S)
627] .
(ii) Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank [Lalit Popli v. Canara
Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 353] .
(iii) H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh
Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] .
28. It is thus well settled that the constitutional courts
while exercising their powers of judicial review would
not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their
jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting
errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest
injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put
LPA 528/2023 Page 8 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing
into the merits of a case like an appellate authority."
38. There is another aspect of the matter. Pursuant to the
findings of the Enquiry Officer, the bank lost confidence in the
petitioner inasmuch as he had retained the amount of the
customer for a period of 20 days and had returned the same
only when the customer approached the bank subsequently.
Though the petitioner contended that there was no malafide on
his part and that he never intended to retain the amount,
however, the fact remains that the amount was retained by him.
39. Thus, Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner
and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 has
held that if the enquiry has been conducted fairly and properly
and the findings are based on evidence, the question of
adequacy of evidence will not be a ground for interfering with
the findings of the departmental enquiries. Further, it has been
held that in dealing with cases of termination of bank
employees, the loss of confidence by the bank in the employee,
will be an important and relevant factor. Thus, it has been held
as follows:
"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an
appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that
another view is possible on the material on record. If the
enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the
findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy
of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will
not be grounds for interfering with the findings in
departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not
interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental
enquiries, except where such findings are based on no
evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to
find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting
LPA 528/2023 Page 9 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or
finding, on the material on record. The courts will
however interfere with the findings in disciplinary
matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory
regulations have been violated or if the order is found to
be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on
extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80
: (1996) 32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham
[(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of
India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 :
1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at
Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000
SCC (L&S) 144] .)
8. When a court is considering whether the punishment of
"termination from service" imposed upon a bank
employee is shockingly excessive or disproportionate to
the gravity of the proved misconduct, the loss of
confidence in the employee will be an important and
relevant factor. When an unknown person comes to the
bank and claims to be the account-holder of a long
inoperative account, and a bank employee, who does not
know such person, instructs his colleague to transfer the
account from "dormant" to "operative" category
(contrary to the instructions regulating dormant
accounts) without any kind of verification, and accepts
the money withdrawal form from such person, gets a
token and collects the amount on behalf of such person
for the purpose of handing it over to such person, he in
effect enables such unknown person to withdraw the
amount contrary to the banking procedures; and
ultimately, if it transpires that the person who claimed to
be the account-holder was an impostor, the bank cannot
be found fault with if it says that it has lost confidence in
LPA 528/2023 Page 10 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
the employee concerned. A bank is justified in contending
that not only the employees who are dishonest, but those
who are guilty of gross negligence, are not fit to continue
in its service."
40. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, the present writ
petition is found without any merits. Accordingly the same is
dismissed."
13. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.05.2023
dismissing the writ petition reveals that an order was passed by the
disciplinary authority of the erstwhile Andhra Bank under clause 6(c) of the
By-partite settlement dated 10.04.2002, whereby, a punishment of
compulsory retirement was imposed upon the appellant herein and was
upheld by the authority vide order dated 22.04.2009.
14. The learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the charge
against the appellant was proved. He kept the money with him for 20 days.
No entry was made in the Books of Account. The amount was not deposited
in sundry account of the Bank nor in the account of the account holder. It is
only when the account holder lodged a complaint in the matter, the appellant
deposited the amount after 20 days.
15. The learned Single Judge after minutely scanning the enquiry records
has arrived at a conclusion that enquiry proceedings were held in accordance
with law in a just and fair manner and the principles of natural justice and
fairplay have been adhered to.
16. The learned Single Judge has also arrived at a conclusion based upon
LPA 528/2023 Page 11 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
the judgment delivered in the case of Chairman and Managing Director,
United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364,
that the bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honestly and
integrity as he deals with the money of depositors and the customers,
therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority does not warrant any
interference.
17. The learned Single Judge has also arrived at a conclusion that based
upon the findings of the enquiry officer, the Bank lost confidence in the
appellant has he has retained the amount of customer for 20 days and
returned the amount only when the customer approached the Bank.
18. The learned Single Judge has taken into account the judgment
delivered in the case of Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others,
(2020) 9 SCC 471 as well as the judgment delivered in the case of State
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584
while dismissing the writ petition.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before this
Court that the learned Single Judge has wrongly upheld the findings of the
disciplinary authority and the appellant authority without considering the
evidence on record. It has also been argued before this Court that there has
been violation of principles of natural justice and fairplay, and the
departmental enquiry was conducted in a mechanical manner.
20. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also argued that the order
LPA 528/2023 Page 12 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
passed by the disciplinary authority is not based upon evidence and deserves
to be set aside.
21. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also argued before this Court
that the appellant was not able to deposit the amount as the account was
inoperative and he sought instructions from senior officers and took steps to
return the amount, and, therefore, no case could have been made out for
misappropriation of funds. It is also been argued that the customer even
stated before the enquiry officer that he does not want any action in the
matter.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant has also vehemently argued before
this Court that the learned Single Judge has erroneously concluded that the
Bank Manager had discovered the misappropriation after 20 days only when
customer came to the Bank and, in fact, there was no misappropriation on
the part of the appellant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
23. A prayer has been made before this Court by the appellant to set aside
the order of punishment as well as the order passed by the appellant
authority.
24. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has
vehemently argued before this Court that the present case involves a banker
who has misappropriated the amount of a customer and it was only when the
customer informed the authorities that the amount has not been credited in
the account of the customer, the appellant deposited the same after 20 days
LPA 528/2023 Page 13 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
in the sundry account. Therefore, as it is a case of misappropriation by a
banker the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition
keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Chairman and
Managing Director, United Commercial Bank (Supra) .
25. Learned counsel for the respondent bank has also vehemently argued
before this Court that the question of interference in the departmental
enquiry in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise.
The enquiry has been conducted fairly and properly and the findings are
based on evidence. Therefore, as there is no violation of principles of
natural justice and fairplay nor any statutory provisions of law, no case for
interference is made out in the peculiar facts and circumstances.
26. Learned counsel for the Bank has vehemently argued before this
Court that the complainant Sh. Parminder Singh had sum of Rs. 5,000/- on
10.04.2007 and a complaint was lodged by Sh. Parminder Singh on
01.05.2007 that the amount has not been deposited in his account. The
appellant himself has admitted that he has later on deposited the amount in
sundry account on 01.05.2007 only after a protest was lodged by the
complainant Sh. Parminder Singh. Meaning thereby, the appellant himself
has admitted the guilt of keeping the customer's money in his own pocket
for a period of 20 days and, therefore, the question of interference in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise.
27. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length as
LPA 528/2023 Page 14 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
well as gone through the grounds raised by the appellant in the present
appeal.
28. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that one customer Sh.
Parminder Singh deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in his Account No. 11046
on 10.04.2007. The amount was not credited in his account, and Sh.
Parminder Singh informed the General Manager in writing on 01.05.2007
that the amount has not been deposited in his account. The aforesaid
document was part of the enquiry proceedings and a translated copy of the
same is reproduced as under:
"To
The Branch Manager
Andhra Bank
R.K.Puram
New Delhi.
Sir,
I, Parminder Singh, am an S.B. account holderofyour
bank and mya/c no. is 11046. Last month I had deposited an
amount of Rs.5,000/- on 10.04.2007 but the amount is not
credited to my account. I request you to give credit of the above
amount to my account.
Thanking you,
Date: 01.05.2007
Yours faithfully,
-sd-
(Parminder Singh)
73, Guru Angad Nagar
(Ex Lakshmi Nagar)
Delhi-110092."
LPA 528/2023 Page 15 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
29. The matter was forwarded by the Assistant General Manager to the
General Manager vide letter dated 05.05.2007, and the same is reproduced
as under:
"ANDHRA BANK
RK PURAM BRANCH
Lr. No. 431/20/116 Date: 05.05.2007
To
General Manager
Andhra Bank
Zonal Office
New Delhi
Reg: Discrepancy in cash receipt of Mr. Dara Singh, (Code
4594) Clerk
****
We have received a complaint from one of our clients. Mr.
Parminder having SB A/c No. 11046 (inoperative) on
O1.05.2007 stating that, he had deposited an amount of
Rs.5,000/- in his account on 10.04.2007, and the same was not
credited to his account. He also produced the counter foil of SB
pay-in-slip which bears the cash receive stamp of the date and
initials of Mr. Dara Singh.
On thorough verification of the days vouchers and transactions
in the system it revealed that the cash receipt of Rs.5,000/- was
not accounted for. On cross verification with Mr, Dara Singh
he stated that the cash deposited by the customer was received
by him on 10.04.2007 and since the SB Account is in
inoperative status, he was unable to credit it to the SB Account.
He also stated that by the time he realized this the customer had
left the branch and he kept the money with him with an
intention to return the amount to the customer.
On receipt of the complaint on 01.05.2007 Mr. Dara Singh has
deposited the amount in sundry Creditors by preparing a SB
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
Challan for the inoperative SB A/c 11046.
As the cash receipt was kept with the employee for 20 days
without accounting for till the customer put up a complaint with
the undersigned we suspect the foul play in the transaction and
hence request you to initiate disciplinary action against the
employee.
-sd-
(G SURYANARAYANA)
ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
Encl: 1 copy of the complaint dt. 01.05.2007
2. Copy of counterfoil of SB pay in slip dt. 10.04.2007 for SB
A/c 11046
3.copy of pay in slip dt. 1.5.2007 of SB inoperative 11046 for
Rs. 5000/-."
30. The aforesaid document which was again a part of the departmental
enquiry proceedings reveals that the amount was deposited by the charged
official only on 01.05.2007 i.e. after a complaint was made in the matter.
31. The appellant was placed under suspension on 20.06.2007 and a
chargesheet was issued on 22.09.2007. The articles of charge dated
22.09.2007 is reproduced as under:
"ANDHRA BANK
(A Govt.of India Undertaking)
Personnel Deptt:: ZONAL OFFICE
From: To
Chief Manager & Competent Mr. Dhara Singh (4594)
Authority Clerk (U/S)
Zonal Office, New Delhi R.K. PURAM BRANCH,
NEW DELHI
Lr. No. 082/20/V/CS/2993 Date: 22.09.2007
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
Dear Sir
Reg: Charge Sheet vide Clause 5(j) of Memorandum of
Settlement Dated 10.04.2002
Name of Staff Mr. Dhara Singh
Staff Code No. 4594
Designation Clerk
Branch where irregularities R. K. Puram (New
committed Delhi)
Articles of Charge:
It is alleged against you that while working as clerk at R. K.
Puram (New Delhi) branch you have committed serious
irregularities. The lapses/ irregularities that have come to light
so far and detailed in the Statement of allegations (annexure-1)
would indicate that:
An amount remitted by the customer, for crediting to his
account, was misappropriated by you, by not accounting for the
same in the books of bank.
The above acts committed by you prejudicial to the interest of
the Bank and constitute gross misconduct as per clause 5(j) of
Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002.
You are hereby required to submit to the undersigned, your
written Statement of Defence, if any, within fifteen days from
the date of receipt of this Articles of charge, failing which it will
be construed that you have no defence to offer and further
action will be taken accordingly.
You may, if so desire, peruse the relative records/documents at
the branch to submit your reply within the said period.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter on the extra copy
enclosed.
Yours faithfully
-sd-
(AJAY BHATNAGAR)
Chief Manager &
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
Disciplinary Authority."
32. The appellant did file a reply, and a detailed and exhaustive enquiry
took place.
33. The enquiry officer after following the principles of natural justice
and fairplay arrived at a conclusion that Sh. Parminder Singh did deposit an
amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 10.04.2007, and lodged a complaint on 01.05.2007
regarding the non-credit of Rs. 5,000/- in his account which he deposited on
10.04.2007. Sh. Parminder Singh lodged a complaint in the matter on
01.05.2007, and it was only on 01.05.2007, the appellant (charged official)
deposited the amount in the sundry account. The findings arrived at by the
enquiry officer are reproduced as under:
"7.00 ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCES:
7.04. PO through Management exhibits concluded that:
Mr. Parminder Singh is having SB A/c. No. 11046 with
Ramakrishnapuram Branch, New Delhi and he has deposited
an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 10.04.2007. He possess a counter
foil with initial of Mr. Dhara Singh, which was also confirmed
by MW1.
Mr. Parminder Singh has lodged a compiaint with the
branch on 01.05.2007 regarding non credit of Rs, 5,000/-
in his account, which he deposited on 10.04.2007.
After making enquiries, it came to light that Mr. Dhara
Singh received the amount and the same was retained
with him till 01.05.2007 i.e. the date of complaint
received from the party and the amount was credited to
Sundry Creditor Account.
The said amount of Rs. 5,000/- was reversed to the
account holders account on 05.05.2007 after receiving
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
request letter for conversion of in-operative account to
operative status.
The details of the above are informed by the branch to
Zonal Office and Zonal Office to Vigilance Department,
Head Office, Hyderabad.
7.02. The averment of the defence is that it is only in-operative
status of the SB No. 11046 and lack of proper knowledge about
the banking and computer environment that has led to retention
of the cash of Rs. 5,000/- with him self by CSE. The other
contnetion of the defence is that the CSE has even tried in futile
to contact the account holder to return back the amount and
further, he has remitted the account immediately on receipt of
complaint. Further, the defence witness who happened to be the
complainant deposed in the enquiry proceedings that he has no
grievance against the Bank. .
7.03. CSE having so many years or experience cannot take a
shelter under such plea. It is the responsibility of the CSE being
cashier to adhere to laid down procedures and systems. Having
received cash for credit to SB A/c. No. 11046 fvg. Mr.
Parminder Singh, which is in non operative status, he would
have, immediately brought the matter to the notice of the
branch head/ superior for changing the status of the account to
"Operative" and then should have credited the amount to the
account or he could have received the amount in "Customer
Entry" for being dealt with by the branch appropriately.
7.04 As contended by the defence, if CSE is not equipped with
adequate knowledge, he would have definitely sought the
assistance of other colleagues at the branch, instead of keeping
the cash with him.
7.05 The amount thus received and not accounted for in the
books of the bank would have resulted in excess cash at the
time of clsing of cash. Then as per the guidelines it should have
been reported to the manager of the branch on the same day
and credited to the Sundry Suspense Account.
7.06 In the instant case it is a fact that the amount of cash of Rs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
5,000/- received by CSE towards credit of SB A/c No, 11046
fvg. Mr. Parminder Singh is neither credited to his account nor
kept in Sundry Suspense account/ informed to higher authority
instead the amount was kept with himself by CSE indicating
misappropriation.
In view of the above analysis, I hold the allegation against CSE
as PROVED
-sd-
(N. SATYANARAYAN)
Enquiry Officer
Date: 23.06.2008"
34. The enquiry report was supplied to the appellant and he was granted
time to reply. The Appellant did submit a reply in the matter and
disciplinary authority based upon the enquiry report after due application of
mind has inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated
22.11.2008 against which an appeal was preferred and the same has been
dismissed on 22.04.2009.
35. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the misconduct committed
by the appellant was proved in the departmental enquiry. The appellant is a
banker and was certainly required to exercise higher standards of honesty
and integrity as he was dealing with money of depositors and customers.
The appellant in all fairness, in case the account of Sh. Parminder Singh was
inoperative on 10.04.2007, could have deposited the amount on the same
day in the sundry account. The appellant kept the money in his pocket, and
it was only when the complaint was lodged by Sh. Parminder Singh who
was the customer, the appellant deposited the money on 01.05.2007 in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
sundry account. Meaning thereby, the factums of misappropriation have
been established in departmental enquiry, and, therefore, the question of
interference with the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate
authority and the learned Single Judge does not arise especially in light of
the judgment delivered in the case of Chairman and Managing Director,
United Commercial Bank (Supra).
36. The findings of the Enquiry Officer establish the acts of omissions
and commissions on behalf of the Petitioner which are based upon
documentary as well as oral evidence and it is nobody's case that principle
of natural justice and fairplay was violated at any point of time.
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Mahalingam v. T.N.
Public Service Commission, (2013) 14 SCC 379, has provided guidance on
the scope of judicial interference in matters challenging disciplinary action.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, in paragraph 11 has held
as under: -
"11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The
scope of judicial review in matters involving challenge to the
disciplinary action taken by the employer is very limited. The
courts are primarily concerned with the question whether the
enquiry has been held by the competent authority in accordance
with the prescribed procedure and whether the rules of natural
justice have been followed. The court can also consider
whether there was some tangible evidence for proving the
charge against the delinquent and such evidence reasonably
supports the conclusions recorded by the competent authority.
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
If the court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry was held in
consonance with the prescribed procedure and the rules of
natural justice and the conclusion recorded by the disciplinary
authority is supported by some tangible evidence, then there is
no scope for interference with the discretion exercised by the
disciplinary authority to impose the particular punishment
except when the same is found to be wholly disproportionate to
the misconduct found proved or shocks the conscience of the
court."
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apparel Export Promotion
Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759, in paragraphs 16 & 17 has
held as under:
"16. The High Court appears to have overlooked the settled
position that in departmental proceedings, the disciplinary
authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is
presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority has
also the power/and jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence
and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact-
finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based on
appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in writ
jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual
findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based
either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse
and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the
evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High
Court. Since the High Court does not sit as an appellate
authority over the factual findings recorded during
departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of
judicial review, the High Court cannot, normally speaking,
substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the
delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even
insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned,
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or
the departmental appellate authority, is either impermissible or
such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should
not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other
punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court, it appears, ignored the well-
settled principle that even though judicial review of
administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension
not closed, yet the court, in exercise of the power of judicial
review, is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of
fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those
findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been
arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with
for procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the
process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial review, it
must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is
confined to the examination of the decision-making process.
Lord Hailsham in Chief Constable of the North Wales
Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141 HL] observed:
"The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that
the individual receives fair treatment, and not to
ensure that the authority, after according fair
treatment, reaches, on a matter which it is
authorized or enjoined by law to decide for itself, a
conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the
court."
17. Judicial review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a
review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the
court, while exercising the power of judicial review, must
remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been
arrived at by the administrative authority after following the
principles established by law and the rules of natural justice
and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet the
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
case against him, the court cannot substitute its judgment for
that of the administrative authority on a matter which fell
squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority."
39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in exercise of review
jurisdiction, normally, there should be no interference with the factual
findings in a departmental enquiry unless the Court finds that the recorded
findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly
perverse and/ or legally untenable.
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. S. Sree
Rama Rao, (1964) 3 SCR 25, in paragraph 7 has held as under:
"7. There is no warrant for the view expressed by the High
Court that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of
the misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in
criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved
by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the
Court, must be applied, and if that rule be not applied, the High
Court in a petition I ... under Article 226 of the Constitution is
competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not constituted
in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of
appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned
to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural
justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which
the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has
accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ
under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may
undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have
held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of
the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the
authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair
decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and
the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion
on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that
conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental
authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the
sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on
which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of
that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be
canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ
under Article 226 of the Constitution."
41. In the aforesaid case, the scope of judicial scrutiny has been looked
into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. P.
Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, in paragraphs 12 & 13 has held as under:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing
to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority
in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the
evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I
was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In
disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act
as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of
its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High
Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could
ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to
admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case
the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear
to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience."
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. N.
Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423, has taken into account the earlier judgments
delivered on the subject and has reiterated that the scope of interference in
departmental enquiry is quite limited. Interference in disciplinary
proceedings can be done in case there is violation of principles of natural
justice and fairplay or if the findings arrived at are based on no evidence/
perverse findings.
44. In light of the aforesaid judgments and in absence of any procedural
irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, this
Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed
by the Learned Single Judge.
45. The present LPA stands dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4683-DB
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
JULY 06 , 2023
aks
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:12.07.2023
14:28:34
