Gauhati High Court
WA/399/2013 on 31 January, 2022
GAHC010108752013
Judgment reserved on : 18th January, 2022
Judgment delivered on : 31st January, 2022
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
W.A NO.399 OF 2013
Sri Ashish Kumar Goon,
Son of Late Pabitra Mohan Goon, C/O Biswanath Sengupta,
Nizarapar, Birubari, P.O. Gopinathnagar, Guwahati-781016,
Kamrup(Metro)
........Appellant
-Versus-
Canara Bank
Having its Head office at Bangalore 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore-
560002 represented by Chairman and Managing Director.
2 The Deputy General Manager,
Canara Bank, Circle Office, 21, Canac Street, Kolkata-700016,
West Bengal.
3 The General Manager,
Canara Bank, Personal Wing Head Office, Bangalore, 112, J.C.
Road, Bangalore-560002.
4 Union of India
Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi
........Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Advocate for the appellant : Mr. N.C. Das, Sr. Advocate assisted by,
Mr. A. Das, Advocate.
Advocate for the respondents : Mr. S. Chamaria, Advocate.
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 1 of 26
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
(Soumitra Saikia, J)
The appellant was initially appointed as a Clerk in the
Canara Bank. He earned his promotion in due course and at the
point in time he was employed as Special Assistant and was
posted in the Sikh Temple Branch, Guwahati since 17.06.1994.
The appellant was served with a Show-Cause notice dated
26.08.2002 issued by the Deputy General Manager (DGM), Circle
Office, Calcutta alleging irregular adjustments in Suspense
Deposit Account. The appellant replied to the Show-Cause notice
denying the allegations made. The Disciplinary Authority did not
accept his explanations/reply. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was
appointed and enquiry proceedings were initiated against the
appellant. The appellant participated in the enquiry proceedings
and the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated
14.06.2003 holding all the charges levelled against the appellant
to be proved. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary
Authority imposed major punishment of "Compulsory Retirement"
as provided for under Regulation 4 (B) of Chapter XI of the
Canara Bank Service Code (hereinafter referred as "Service
Code"). The appellant being aggrieved by the order of
"Compulsory Retirement", preferred an appeal before the
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 2 of 26
Authority prescribed under the Service Code. His appeal also
being rejected by the Appellate Authority, he preferred a writ
petition being W.P(C) No. 6377/2005 challenging the validity,
legality and proprietary of the order of "Compulsory Retirement"
dated 27.09.2003 as well as the order dated 30.12.2004 passed
by the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge vide
Judgment dated 17.09.2013 dismissed the writ petition declining
to interfere with the order of Compulsory Retirement passed by
the Disciplinary Authority. Being dissatisfied with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been
preferred.
2. Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das,
learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
allegations/charges against the appellant were totally uncalled for
as the appellant had been diligent in rendering his service since
his date of appointment. The learned Senior counsel referring to
the communication dated 26.08.2002 would submit that the same
was issued to the appellant to explain Irregular Adjustment in
suspense Deposit Account at your Branch- Irregularities observed
on your part. There was no allegation of causing financial loss to
the bank or wrongful gain by the appellant. That apart, the
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 3 of 26
learned Senior counsel urged that during the enquiry proceedings,
there are management witnesses who had testified that the
appellant was one of the excellent employees of the Branch. The
learned Senior counsel also submits that as per the Canara Bank
Service Code "Misconduct" may be "gross misconduct" or "minor
misconduct". Referring to Clause 3 of the Service Code, he
submits that the acts and omission of "gross misconduct" referred
thereunder does not relate to any of the charges made against
the appellant. Instead at best, the acts or omissions provided for
under Clause 5 (d) can be attributed to the appellant namely
"breach of any rule of business of the bank or instruction for the
running of any department". He refers to Clause 6 of the Service
Code and submits that the punishment pursuant to any finding
arrived at in respect of minor misconduct are provided for under
Clause 6 of the Service Code. The learned Senior counsel,
therefore submits that besides the enquiry being conducted in
gross violation of the procedures mandated under law and with
total disregard to the lack of evidence against the appellant, even
assuming though not admitting that pursuant to the enquiry any
punishment was required to be imposed upon the appellant, the
same could only have been done as provided for under the
Service Code for those which relate to minor misconduct. The
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 4 of 26
learned Senior counsel, therefore, submits that the punishment of
"Compulsory Retirement" imposed by the Disciplinary Authority
and upheld by the Appellant Authority is wholly disproportionate
and the learned Single Judge having failed to pass appropriate
orders in this regard, the order of the learned Single Judge needs
to be interfered with, set aside and consequently, the punishment
imposed by the Bank Authorities be set aside and quashed. In
support of his contentions, the learned Senior counsel would
relied upon the following Judgments:
1. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570
2. State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde,
reported in (2006) 7 SCC 212
3. State of Meghalaya and Ors. Vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak,
reported in (2008) 7 SCC 580
4. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Ram Daras Yadav,
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 236
5. M.S. Bindra vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in
(1998) 7 SCC 310
6. Ram Janam Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr. reported in
AIR 1994 SC 1722
7. Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai),
Allahabad Bank and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 1377
8. Regional Manager, UP SRTC, Etawah and Ors. Vs. Hoti
Lal and Anr, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 605
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 5 of 26
3. Per contra, Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the Bank
strongly disputes the contentions of the learned Senior counsel for
the appellant that the appellant did not cause any financial loss to
the Bank. On the contrary, referring to the communication dated
26.08.2002, he submits that the said communication gave a
detailed descriptions of irregularities caused by the appellant in
respect of a Suspense Account maintained at the Bank by
preparing an unauthorized debit and credit vouchers in favour of
one M/S Ishu Sales Corporation. According to the Bank, such
casting mistakes were occasioned due to the failure of the
appellant to adhere to the instructions of Senior Manager by not
verifying the old records before debiting the Suspense Deposit.
The learned counsel for the Bank further disputes the contention
that the acts and omissions of the appellant at best can be
termed to be "minor misconduct" and not "gross misconduct" as
has been held by the Bank. The learned counsel for the Bank
submits that the appellant had admitted before the Bank
Authorities which is also reflected in his reply as well as in the
appeal that the casting mistakes were at the instance of the
instructions of Senior Manager. The learned counsel for the Bank
submits that such casting mistakes did not happen in a single day
rather it was spread over a period of time. It is submitted that in
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 6 of 26
terms of Clause 3 of the Service Code amongst the acts and
omissions of any employee which are construed to be gross
misconduct, habitual act of minor misconduct as well as doing any
act which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank are some of the
acts and omissions which are considered to be gross misconduct
and which are attributable to the appellant. The learned counsel
for the Bank relied upon a Judgment of the Apex Court rendered
in Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia bank and Ors reported in
(2021) 3 SCC 806 to support his contention. The learned counsel
for the Bank submits that any deviation from the procedural
guidelines of the Bank would lead to erosion of public trust of the
Banks. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the
appellant being a Bank Officer, a great deal of trust is required to
be reposed upon an Officer of the Bank and any dereliction of
duty in respect of flouting of the norms and procedures cannot be
viewed to be a minor mistake or minor misconduct. He, therefore
submits that there is no infirmity in the enquiry proceedings and
the appellant having admitted that there were casting mistakes,
the imposition of punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" is
appropriate and no interference thereof is called for by this Court
in exercise of judicial review.
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 7 of 26
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and
have perused the pleadings on record.
5. To understand the allegations made against the appellant, it
will be appropriate to extract the contents of the letter dated
26.08.2002 which details the irregularities stated to have been
resorted to by the appellant.
"CANARA BANK
STAFF SECTION (OFFICER), CIRCLE OFFICE, KOLKATA.
KC:: 4455: E_113(i) SKH: 2002
AUGUST 26, 2002
Shri Ashis Kumar Goon (38469)
Special Assistant
Canara Bank
Sikh Temple
Guwahati.
Dear Sir,
Sub: Irregular Adjustment in suspense Deposit Account at
your Branch- Irregularities observed on your Part.
It has been reported to us that at the time of creation of master
date for computerization of your Branch, it was found that suspense
Deposit Account was not tallied since 30.09.2001 and there was a
difference of Rs. 18,552/- in the account. A detailed investigation
into the matter has revealed the following:
1. One Mr. Dilip Das vide his letter dated 29.06.2001 requested
to pay back Rs. 18,522/- through pay order as he had
deposited a cheque on 02.08.1989 without writing the
account number in the pay-in-slip and the same is kept in
Suspense Deposit Account of the branch for want of full
particulars. On the top of the said letter, the Senior Manager
of the Branch instructed to verify the old records and then
credit.
2. On 30.06.2001 you have prepared the debit slip for debiting
Rs. 18,522/- to Suspense Deposit Account and also credit
slip for DD favouring Shri Dilip Das for Rs. 18,522/-. Basing
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 8 of 26
on the same the Senior Manager has signed the debit slip
authorizing debit to Suspense Deposit account. The
transaction has been put through on 02-07-2001 and DD No.
550694 dated 02-07-2001 for Rs. 18,522/- has been issued
favouring Shri Dilip Das.
3. The Suspense Deposit Account has been presumably debited
against the following credits:
Date of Credit: Amount:
05-09-1989 Rs. 3,000/-
06-09-1989 Rs. 3,000/-
06-09-1989 Rs. 3,000/-
03-08-1989 Rs. 8,000/-
06-09-1989 Rs. 1,500/-
03-08-1989 Rs. 22/-
_______________
Rs. 18,522/-
However, these amounts have already been reversed during
August to September' 89 and credited to the following
accounts:
DETAILS/NAME: TYPE OF TRANS. AMOUNT ADJUSTED ON ADJUSTED TO
T. Singh Clearing 3,000/- 05-09-89 SB 539
B.C. Baid -do- 3,000/- 06-09-89 SB 537
B.K. Sharma -do- 3,000/- 06-09-89 SB 1130
U.C. Medhi -do- 3,000/- 03-08-89 SB 491
S.D. Singh -do- 1,500/- 06-09-89 SB 41
D.C. Jain -do- 22/- 03-08-89 Illegible
___________
18,522/-
Thus the second debit of the amount on 30-06-2001 has
been done without any corresponding credit being available
in Suspense Deposit Account.
4. During investigation, it has also been observed that no
person named Shri Dilip Das is residing at the address given
in letter dated 29-06-01.
5. On 05-07-2001, the said DD dated 30-06-2001 favouring
Shri Dilip Das was received by you at the branch at Clearing
Deptt. With credit challan for credit to CA 1925 of M/S. Ishu
Sales Corpn. The amount has been credited to the subject
account on 06-07-2001 after clearing.
On further verification, the following is observed:
i) On 12-08-2000, there was a casting mistake in Current
Account No. 1925 of M/S Ishu Sales Corpn. when you were
the Supervisor of Current Account Department resulting in
debit balance of Rs. 1,97,327.87. The party has repaid the
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 9 of 26
amount gradually and a sum of Rs. 22,143/- is debited to
the account till 30-06-2001 as TOD interest.
ii) After crediting Rs. 18,522/- on 06-07-2001, further Rs.
7,000/- has been recovered by way of cash on 07-07-2001
and the Current Account TOD has been regularized.
From the above it is observed that you have failed to adhere
to the instructions of the Senior Manager by not verifying the
old records before debiting Suspense Deposit. You have also
accepted the DD issued in favour of Shri Dilip Das and have
credited the proceeds to the Current Account No. 1925 of
M/S Ishu Sales Corpn.
In view of the above you are hereby called upon to explain
as to what you have to say in the matter within 7 days of
receipt of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- Illegible
(N.Jeevagan)
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.
Copy to:-
1. Sikh Temple, Guwahati Branch: Please deliver the original
to the converned employee against his dated
acknowledgement and sent the acknowledged copy to us
(1) for their files.
2. Regional Office, Guwahati
3. Staff Section (Workmen), Circle Office, Kolkata.
4. goon 2. Txt."
6. In the reply, the appellant made a categorical statement
that the Senior Manager instructed him to prepare debit vouchers
debiting Suspense Deposit Account for Rs. 18,522/- and also the
corresponding credit slips to be prepared for DD favouring Shri
Dilip Das. The appellant stated that he had prepared both the
slips and had handed over to the Senior Manager and after being
duly authorized, the amount of Rs. 18,522/- vide DD no. 550694
dated 02.07.2001 was issued in favour of the said Sri Dilip Das. In
respect of the casting mistake relating to Current Account No.
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 10 of 26
1925 of M/S Ishu Sales Corporation on 12.08.2000 resulting in
debit balance of Rs. 1,97,327.87 and its regularization thereof on
07.07.2001. It is stated that the same are available in the records
of the Branch. The reply of the appellant in response to the letter
dated 26.08.2002 is also reproduced below:
"From Sri Asish Kumar Goon, (38469),
Canara Bank,
Sikh Temple,
Guwahati.
To: The Deputy General Manager,
Canara Bank,
Circle Office,
Kolkata.
(Through the Manager, Sikh Temple Brach)
Dear Sir,
I Acknowledge receipt of your KC:SSO:4455 E_113(i) SKH 2002,
dated 26th August, 2002 and submit the following for your kind
perusal and favourable consideration.
1. At the outset permit me to place on record that the said letter
dated 29.06.01 nor the instructions "Verify the old records and
then credit" was neither given/shown to me by the then Senior
Manager of the branch and hence cannot be held against me in
any manner.
2. The fact that on 30.06.01 the Senior Manager had instructed me
to prepare Debit voucher debiting Suspense Deposit Account for
Rs. 18,500/- and also the corresponding Credit slip to be prepared
to DD favouring Shri Dilip Das. I had prepared both the slips and
handed over to the then Senior Manager., On 2.7.01 the then
Senior Manager had duly authorized both the debit slip and the
corresponding credit slip and the DD 550694 dated 2.7.01 for Rs.
18,522/- was issued in favour of Sri Dilip Das.
3. For your information the Suspense Deposit Account was not being
rounded off at that time for a long period. Hence this procedure
was not adhered at all. The amount of debit of Rs. 18,522/- was
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 11 of 26
indicated by the then Senior Manager and it was not debited as
presumed by you under point number three of page one of your
above cited letter.
4. Even though all the six debits under Suspense Deposit Account
were reversed during August-September 1989, the individual
debits laying under Suspense Deposit Account were not rounded
off.
5. On 5.7.01 I was working in the Clearing Department. The said DD
was received in the National Course and credited to Current
Account 1925 of M/S Ishu Sales Corporation.
The other observation is about the casting mistake in the Current
Account 1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation on 12.8.00 resulted
in Debit Balance of Rs. 1,97,327.87 and its regularization thereof
on 7.7.01 are available in the records of the Branch.
I have just prepared the debit and credit
For Rs. 18,522/- as instructed by him on 30-06-01 prior to his
relief on SVRS.... The service of the Bank on the said date.
I have neither met Sri Dilip Das nor the letter dated 29-06-01
shown me with the alleged instructions of the then Senior
Manager "Verify the old records and then credit". Hence the
question of failure to adhere to the instructions of the then Senior
Manager as stated does not arise at all. I was really surprised to
note such instructions were written by the then Senior Manager
who was fully aware about the position of the unbalanced
Suspense Deposit Account and procedure for reversing the entries
from Suspense Deposit Account were not being adhered to.
Hence proceeding against me on the alleged lapse of not adhering
to the procedure and system that too for preparing the slips as
directed is not fair.
I have put in more than two decades of unblemished record of
service in our institution. I have also stood with the Branch on
many difficult situations. I request you to consider this reply
dispassionately and drop further proceedings and render justice to
me.
Thanking you,
Your's faithfully
th
Dated: 20 September, 2002. Sd/- Illegible
Place: Guwahati. (Asish Kumar Goon)"
7. What is evident from the letter dated 26.08.2002 and the
reply thereto by the appellant is that there were two irregularities
noticed by the Bank during investigation. The first pertains to the
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 12 of 26
Suspense Deposit Account in respect of an amount of Rs.
18,522/- which was debited against the following credits:
Date of Credit: Amount:
05-09-1989 Rs. 3,000/-
06-09-1989 Rs. 3,000/-
06-09-1989 Rs. 3,000/-
03-08-1989 Rs. 8,000/-
06-09-1989 Rs. 1,500/-
03-08-1989 Rs. 22/-
_______________
Rs. 18,522/-
The said amounts were however reversed during August to
September, 1989 and credited to the following accounts:
DETAILS/NAME: TYPE OF TRANS. AMOUNT ADJUSTED ON ADJUSTED TO
T. Singh Clearing 3,000/- 05-09-89 SB 539
B.C. Baid -do- 3,000/- 06-09-89 SB 537
B.K. Sharma -do- 3,000/- 06-09-89 SB 1130
U.C. Medhi -do- 3,000/- 03-08-89 SB 491
S.D. Singh -do- 1,500/- 06-09-89 SB 41
D.C. Jain -do- 22/- 03-08-89 Illegible
___________
18,522/-
8. Therefore, the second debit entry of the said amount on
30.06.2001 was done without any corresponding credit being
available in the Suspense Deposit Account. Further the person in
whose favour the DD of Rs. 18,522/- was issued and was found
to be not a resident of the address and the said DD favouring the
said Shri Dilip Das was received by the appellant himself at the
Branch with a Credit challan for credit to the Current Account No.
1925 of M/S Ishu Sales Corporation. Thereafter, on 12.08.2000
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 13 of 26
there was a casting mistake in the Current Account No. 1925 of
M/S Ishu Sales Corporation resulting in a debit balance of Rs.
1,97,327.87. The said account holder thereafter repaid the
amount gradually and a sum of Rs. 22,143/- is debited to the
account till 30.06.2001 as TOD interest. As such, the allegations
against the appellant is that contrary to the instructions of Senior
Manager, the old records were not verified before debiting the
Suspense Account. He had also accepted Demand Draft in favour
of one Shri Dilip Das and credited the proceeds to the Current
Account No. 1925 of M/S Ishu Sales Corporation. The Bank
Authorities being dissatisfied with his explanations in response the
letter dated 26.08.2002 framed charges and issued charge-sheet.
The charge-sheet was accompanied by the lists of documents and
names of the witnesses. The charge-sheet dated 13.11.2002 is
extracted below:
"CANARA BANK
DISCIPLINARY ACTION CELL : : CIRCLE OFFICE : : KOLKATA
REF NO: KC: DAC: 747: CH(W-3/2002)
CHARGE SHEET VIDE CHAPTER XI. REGULATION 9(1)(a) OF CANARA BANK
SERVICE CODE
IN THE MATTER OF :
Alleged act of misconduct on the part of-
NAME : SRI ASISH KUMAR GOON
STAFF NUMBER : 38469
DESIGNATION : SPECIAL ASSISTANT (U/S)
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 14 of 26
BRANCH AT WHICH : SIKH TEMPLE, GUWAHATI
WORKING.
To,
SRI ASHISH KUMAR GOON (38469)
SPECIAL ASSISTANT (U/S)
CANARA BANK
SIKH TEMPLE BRANCH
GUWAHATI.
Whereas there are Prima facie grounds for believing that you have committed
misconduct, the particulars whereof are given below, this charge sheet has been
drawn up against you and you are hereby required to submit your explanation in
writing within fifteen days of receipt of this charge sheet, meeting forth your
defence, if any, any stating cause as to why disciplinary action should not be
taken against you.
CHARGE:
You are working at our Sikh Temple, Guwahati Branch as Special Assistant (U/S)
since 17-06-94. At the time of creation Master Data for back office
Computerisation of Sikh Temple, Guwahati Branch, it was revealed that the
suspense deposit account was not tallied after June, 2001 and there was a
difference of Rs.18,522/-.
An investigation was conducted in this regard and the following has been
revealed.
Vide Letter dated 29-06-2001, one Mr. Dilip Das requested to pay back
Rs.18,522/- through pay order as he deposited a Cheque on 02-08-89 without
writing the account No. in the pay-in-slip and the same was kept in Suspense
Deposit Account of the branch for want of full particulars. On the top of the said
letter the Senior Manager has specifically mentioned to verify the old records and
then credit.
On 30-06-2001 you prepared the debit slip for debiting Rs.18,522/- the Suspense
Deposit Account towards payment of below mentioned credit items dated 02-08-
89.
Date of credits: Amount :
02-08-1989 :: Rs. 3,000/-
02-08-1989 :: Rs. 3,000/-
02-08-1989 :: Rs. 3,000/-
02-08-1989 :: Rs. 1,500/-
02-08-1989 :: Rs. 8,000/-
02-08-1989 :: Rs. 22/-
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Page 15 of 26
Contra Credit slip for the like amount for preparing DD favouring Sri Dilip Das was
prepared by you.
However, these amounts have already been reversed during August-
September 1989 and credited to the following accounts.
(Amount in Rs.)
Details/Name Type of Trans. Amount Adjusted on Adjusted to
T. Singh Clearing 3,000/- 05-09-89 SB 539
B.C.Baid -do- 3,000/- 06-09-89 SB 537
B.K.Sharma -do- 3,000/- 06-09-89 SB 1130
S.D.Singh -do- 1,500/- 06-09-89 SB 41
U.C. Medhi -do- 8,000/- 03-08-89 SB 491
D.C. Jain -do- 22/- 03-08-89 To clearing
Cheque
returned
---------------------------------------------------
Thus, the debit for the amount of Rs.18,522/- on 02-07-2001 has been done
without any corresponding credit being available in Suspense Deposit Account.
During the investigation it is revealed that no person named Sri Dilip Das is
residing at the address given in the letter dated 29-06-01.
On 17-08-2000 you were working as the supervisor of the Current Account
department of the branch. On that date, there was casting mistake in CA No.
1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation resulting in debit balance of Rs.1,97,327.87.
The party has repaid the amount gradually and a sum of Rs.22,143/- is debited to
the account till 30-06-2001 as TOD interest. On 05-07-2001 DD dtd. 02.07.2001
favouring Sri Dilip Das was received by you at the branch with credit challan for
credit to CA No. 1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation. The amount of Rs.18,522/-
has been credited to the Account of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation on 06-07-2001.
After crediting Rs.18,522/- on 06-07-2001, a further amount of Rs.7,000/- has
been recovered by way of cash regularised.
You have failed to adhere to the instructions of the Senior Manager to verify the
old records before debiting Suspense Deposit. On 30-06-2001 you have prepared
the debit Slip for debiting the suspense deposit by Rs.18,522/- even though there
was no contra credit outstanding for the same. You have also accepted the DD
W.A No. 399 of 2013
issued in favour of Sri Dilip Das for credit to the CA No. 1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales
Corporation.
It is revealed that even though you prepared the slip on dated 30-06-
2001 and got the same signed by the Senior Manager but passed the entry on 02-
07-2001 when the concerned Senior Manager was not in the service of the bank.
Further, it is revealed that you have addressed a letter dtd. 04-07-2001 to Mr.
Manoj Kumar Tekriwal, Proprietor of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation, in the capacity
of the branch Manager giving a commitment regarding waiver of interest of
Rs.18,000/- in case the balance amount of Rs.7,000/= is paid by the party on or
before 10-07-2001. However, you have not obtained any permission from the
Competent Authority to waive any interest amount due from M/S. Ishu Sales
Corporation and you were not at all authorized by the bank to issue such letter to
the party. Further, a letter dtd. 07-07-2001 of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation
addressed to the Branch confirming credit of Rs. 7,000/- to their Current Account
had also been received by you and the said letter bears you __ initial alongwith
the bank's stamp (transfer stamp). The above fact in respect to the letters dated
04-07-01- and dtd. 07-07-01 have not been brought to the knowledge/intimated
to the Manager of the branch on 04-07-2001 and 07-07-2001 with an intention to
suppress the facts thereby favouring the party.
Thus, you had unauthorisedly issued the letter dated 04-07-2001 to Mr. Manoj
Kumar Tekriwal, Proprietor of M/S. Ishu Sales Corporation informing waiving of
interest. You had also fraudulently debited an amount of Rs.18,522/- to suspense
deposit account without having any corresponding entry for issue of DD favouring
Sri Dilip Das and got the DD proceeds credited to CA No. 1925 of M/S. Ishu Sales
Corporation to make good the TOD interest waiver which you had committed to
the customer vide letter dated 04-07-2001.
Thus, you have misused your official position in the bank by committing a
fraud in the books of the bank and writing letters unauthorisedly in the capacity of
Manager thereby exposing the bank to financial loss. Further, you have failed to
ensure and protect the interest of the bank and discharge your duties with utmost
integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. Thereby you have committed Gross
Misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI, Regulation 2A(i) and 3(j) of Canara
Bank Service Code.
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Further, your above actions being prejudicial to the interest of the bank,
you have also committed Gross Misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI,
Regulation 3, Clause (m) of Canara Bank Code.
CIRCLE OFFICE
KOLKATA
Sd/- Illegible
Deputy General Manager
Disciplinary Authority
Date, 13 NOV 2002"
9. Pursuant to the issuance of the charges, the appellant
submitted his reply and also participated in the enquiry
proceedings. The Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report held that
all the charges were proved against the appellant. From the
report of Enquiry Officer, it is evident that Demand Draft for an
amount of Rs. 18,522/- favouring to one Shri Dilip Das was
received at the credit section by the appellant along with a credit
slip for crediting amount to Current Account No. 1925 of M/S Ishu
Sales Corporation. Further, the said Credit account was overdrawn
by an amount of Rs. 1,97,327.87 since 17.08.2001 due to a
casting mistake which was again attributed to the appellant. On
the basis of such findings in the enquiry report which are
pursuant to a detailed and extensive enquiry conducted by the
Enquiry Officer appointed, the Enquiry Officer held that the
charges levelled against the appellant are proved and the
appellant was held to be guilty. The Enquiry Officer submitted his
W.A No. 399 of 2013
report before the Disciplinary Authority who agreed with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer and proposed to impose a
punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" as provided under
Regulation 4(B) of Chapter XI Canara Bank Service Code. The
appellant was given an opportunity of personal hearing. The
Disciplinary Authority upon hearing the appellant vide order dated
27.09.2003 imposed the punishment of "Compulsory Retirement".
The appeal preferred by the appellant against the punishment
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was also rejected by the
Appellate Authority.
10. Perusal of the pleadings on record reveals that the appellant
had indeed admitted inter alia to the casting mistake in respect of
the Current Account No. 1925 relating to M/S Ishu Sales
Corporation. Although a plea of defence was sought to be raised
by the appellant that the same was at the instructions of the
Senior Manager, however, such plea of defence raised by the
appellant cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the
appellant is an employee of a Nationalised Bank and such acts or
omissions on the part of the appellant had resulted in infraction of
the procedures as well as the instructions relating to financial
and/or banking transactions. The responsibility of a Bank Officer
W.A No. 399 of 2013
is to be viewed from the standpoint of the high degree of faith
and confidence reposed by the depositors in respect of their
deposits made in the bank of which he is an Officer. The
explanations of the appellant, in respect of the allegations made
regarding the transaction pertaining to the said Shri Dilip Das as
well as the casting mistake resulting in unauthorized debit balance
in the Current Account no. 1925 relating to M/S Ishu Sales
Corporation cannot be brushed aside as being minor discrepancies
as the findings of the Enquiry Officer reveal that such
discrepancies did not happen in a single day. The appellant was
aware of such discrepancies which had occurred over a period of
time. However, there is no statement of the appellant to suggest
that these discrepancies upon having been noticed by him were
brought to the notice of the higher authorities and/or appropriate
authorities in the Branch and also as to what remedial steps were
undertaken by the appellant to rectify these mistakes. The
appellant merely states that these transactions were as per the
instructions of Senior Manager. It is not even stated that as to
what steps were taken by the appellant in respect of
discrepancies referred to in the charge-sheet, as also it is not the
case of the appellant that he was unaware of the transactions
which are related to the discrepancies alleged.
W.A No. 399 of 2013
11. The Judgment of the Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi(supra)
referred to does not come to aid of the appellant in view of the
fact that the appellant does not deny his act or omission in
respect of the charges alleged. Rather he has consistently
maintained that the said transactions were pursuant to
instructions of the Senior Manager. The appellant has not stated
that the transactions in respect of against which the charge-sheet
is issued are acceptable as per the banking procedures and
conventions. The appellant is a sufficiently experienced Bank
Officer and therefore, unless it is specifically stated that the
transactions in respect of which the charge-sheet is issued, are
not contrary to banking procedures and conventions, his mere
defence that the same were entered upon the instructions of the
Senior Manager cannot be countenanced.
The Judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh Dinkar
Punde(supra) relied upon by the appellant relates to the scope of
judicial review in respect of departmental enquiry. The Apex court
held that the re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible in
judicial review. It is held by the Apex Court that the bank officer
committing misconduct for his personal ends and against the
W.A No. 399 of 2013
interest of the bank and the depositors must be dealt with iron
hand without any leniency.
In Mecken Singh N. Marak(Supra), the Apex Court held that
the punishment pursuant to the Departmental Enquiry unless
shockingly disproportionate, is not subject to judicial interference
and therefore, in such cases judicial review is extremely limited.
In Ram Daras Yadav(Supra), the Apex Court held that
where it is difficult to examine the veracity of the allegations
against the employee and in the absence of definite conclusion,
punishment of dismissal is disproportionate.
In M.S. Bindra (supra), the Apex Court held that where the
conclusions arrived at by the administrative authority were not
supported by way of available material, such action can be
judicially reviewed
The Judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Janam Singh
(Supra) pressed into service by the appellant pertains to the date
of reckoning on notional seniority. The Judgment is clearly not
related to the facts and issues raised in the present case.
The Judgment of the Apex Court in Kailash Nath Gupta
(Supra) is in respect of an order the High Court of Allahabad
W.A No. 399 of 2013
where the question of punishment of removal from service
whether grossly disproportionate to the charge was not decided
and was therefore, remitted back for a decision on the issue.
The Judgment in Regional Manager UP SRTC, Etawah
(supra) also relied upon by the appellant holds that the scope of
judicial review in respect of penalty and punishment is extremely
limited and restricted to exceptional cases. Where the Court holds
the punishment to be not commensurate with the charges,
reasons must be given for coming to such a finding.
12. In the facts of the present proceedings, there is a clear
finding by the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges alleged
coupled with the admission of the appellant that such transactions
were indeed resorted to but only upon the instructions of the
Senior Manager of the Bank. The facts of the present case are
clearly distinguishable from the facts in the judgments referred to
by the appellant. Therefore the Judgments of the Apex Court on
the facts of this case is clearly not applicable and therefore does
not come to the aid of the appellant.
In view of the specific findings arrived at by the Enquiry
Officer coupled with the admission of the appellant in respect of
his involvement with regard to the transactions against which the
W.A No. 399 of 2013
enquiry was conducted, the ratio of the Judgment of the Apex
Court is not applicable as the facts are distinguishable.
13. In the context of the facts in the present proceedings, the
ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Boloram
Bordoloi(supra) is clearly applicable. The Apex Court held that the
appellant therein had verbally admitted to the charges but was
trying to explain such lapses due work before and even
expression his willingness to bear the loss suffered by the Bank
on account of his lapses. It was held that the procedural
guidelines which are issued for grant of loans, are expected to be
followed meticulously by the officers and the employees, as any
deviation would lead to erosion of public trust on the banks. The
Apex Court held that since the charges levelled against the
appellant therein were grave and serious in nature, the
Disciplinary Authority was liberal in imposing punishment of
Compulsory Retirement. The relevant extract of the Judgment is
reproduced below:
"12. Even, the last submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the
gravity of charges, also cannot be accepted. The charges framed
against the appellant in the departmental enquiry are serious and
grave. If we look at the response, in his letter dated 16-8-2005,
to the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, it is
clear that he has virtually admitted the charges, however, tried
to explain that such lapses occurred due to work pressure.
W.A No. 399 of 2013
Further he went to the extent of saying -- he is ready to bear
the loss suffered by the Bank on account of his lapses.
13. The Manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the
affairs of the bank. A bank officer/employee deals with the public
money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the in-
built requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the
bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the
bank will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issued
for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the
same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public
trust on the banks. If the Manager of a bank indulges in such
misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo dated 18-6-
2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such
charges are grave and serious. In spite of proved misconduct on
such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in
imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view
of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in
the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate
to the gravity of charges. As such, this submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted."
14. The facts which unfurl from the disciplinary proceedings
initiated by the Bank and the facts which are evident pursuant to
the enquiries made as well as upon due consideration of the reply
submitted by the appellant, it is evident that the acts and
omissions of the officer are covered by the expression "gross
misconduct" as per the Clause 3 of the Service Code. The
punishment in respect of "gross misconducts" is provided for
under Clause 4 of the Service Code. The Bank Authorities upon
the findings arrived at imposed the punishment of "Compulsory
Retirement" which is prescribed under sub clause (c) of clause 4
of the Service Code. In view of such specific findings, this Court
W.A No. 399 of 2013
comes to a finding that the "gross misconduct" has been resorted
to by the acts or omissions on the part of the appellant and the
punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" imposed by the bank
authority is not disproportionate.
15. Considering the discussions above, we do not find any
occasion to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge.
We, accordingly, uphold the Judgment of the learned Single
Judge vide judgment dated 17.09.2013 and decline to allow the
present appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order
as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
W.A No. 399 of 2013
