Gauhati High Court
WA/247/2019 on 9 May, 2023
GAHC010067052019
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 247/2019
Mrs. Swapna Kalita
Wife of Prafulla Kumar Baruah,
Resident of VIll. Raja Gaon, Ward No. 1
P.O. Morigaon, District: Morigaon, Assam
........Appellant
-Versus-
1. Assam Gramin Vikash Bank,
A Joint undertaking of Government of India,
Government of Assam & United Bank of India,
represented by its Chairman, Head Office: G.S Road,
Bhangagarh, Guwahati-05
2. The Chairman, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank,
Head Office: G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati-05
3. The Regional Manager, Assam Gramin Vikash
Bank, Head Office: G.S. Road, Bhangagarh,
Guwahati-05
4. The Senior Manager,Assam Gramin Vikash
Bank, Morigaon Branch,
Page | 1
5. Smti. Sunanda Pal Choudhury, The Enquiry
Officer, Senior Manager, Assam Gramin Vikash
Bank, Regional Office, Silchar, Assam,
6. Shri Prabhat Bhagwati,
The Presenting Officer, Manager, Assam Gramin
Vikash Bank, Kamalpur, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh,
Guwahati-05
........Respondents
:: BEFORE::
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Singha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. T. Chakraborty, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 28.03.2023
Date of Judgment : 09.05.2023
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J)
This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated
06.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2897/2013.
2. The appellant was initially appointed to the post of Office Assistant
(multi-purpose) at Hatisung, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (hereinafter
referred to as "AGV Bank") branch in the District of Nagaon on 01.06.1990.
After rendering service in different branches of the AGVB, the appellant
Page | 2
was posted at the Morigaon Branch in the same capacity at the relevant
point in time. While, she was serving in the Morigaon Branch of AGVB, she
was served with a letter dated 23.03.2011 issued by the respondent No. 4,
calling upon her to submit her explanation in respect of an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) which it was claimed was misappropriated
by the appellant for the period from 21.02.2011 to 17.03.2011. Pursuant to
the said letter, the appellant submitted her explanation denying the
allegations leveled against her in her reply dated 25.03.2011. On the same
date, by another communication dated 25.03.2011, the Chairman and the
Disciplinary Authority of the Bank placed the appellant under suspension in
contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant. The
appellant was issued show-cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should
not be initiated against her for misappropriating an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- for the period from 21.02.2011 to 17.03.2011. The appellant
denied all the charges leveled against her by furnishing her reply dated
29.07.2011. A further notice was issued by the Chairman and the
Disciplinary Authority dated 13.10.2011 whereby Article of Charges were
served on the appellant. The appellant submitted her written statements
on 31.10.2011 against the allegations levelled against her. Not being
satisfied with her explanation furnished by way of the written statements,
the Bank decided to initiate a departmental enquiry against the appellant
Page | 3
and appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled
against the appellant. A Presenting Officer was also appointed to present
the Bank's case in the departmental enquiry. The enquiry, thereafter,
proceeded and the appellant also participated in the departmental
proceedings which concluded on 16.05.2012. After conclusion of the
enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report holding that all
the charges levelled against the appellant stands proved. The Chairman
and Disciplinary Authority furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the
appellant and permitting her to submit her statements. The appellant
submitted her statements denying all the allegations and further stating
that the Management Witnesses (M.W.) were not able to prove the
signature of the appellant in the counter foil dated 21.02.2011 and also
that the Enquiry Officer denied her request to summon vital witnesses for
adducing evidence in her support. By communication dated 30.11.2012,
the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose the
punishment of removal from the service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment. The appellant was permitted to
appeared personally or to submit her written representation with regard to
the proposed punishment. The appellant responded by appearing in-person
before the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority denying the allegations
Page | 4
of misappropriation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the Chairman and the
Disciplinary Authority by communication dated 24.12.2012 imposed the
punishment on the appellant of removal from service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment. Against the said order of
punishment dated 24.12.2012, the appellant preferred an appeal dated
04.02.2013 before the appellate authority. However, the same also came
to be dismissed rejected by the appellate authority by communication
dated 04.03.2013. Being aggrieved the appellant approached this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No. 2897/2013 challenging the impugned order dated
24.12.2012 being the order of removal and a further direction to treat the
petitioner/appellant to be on duty with effect from 24.12.2012 till her
reinstatement and back wages. After consideration of the entire matter as
well as the various Judgments of the Apex Court enunciating the principles
of judicial review in respect of departmental proceedings leading to
punishment of removal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the
present writ appeal has been filed on the following grounds:
"(a) For that the learned single judge failed to appreciate the law and
facts involves in the case from its proper prospective and as such erred in
refusing to set aside the order of removal from service issued by the
respondent bank against the appellant.
Page | 5
(b) For that the learned signal judge failed to appreciate that the Enquiry
Officer did not considered the written statement dated 07/08/2012
submitted by the appellant against the finding of the Enquiry Officer by
denying the allegations put forward by him.
(c) For that the law is well settled that in a departmental proceeding a
person against whom proceeding has been drawn up must be given
appropriate opportunity to prove his/her case. In the present case the
Enquiry Officer did not considered the prayer of the appellant for
summoning the vital witnesses as proposed by her to prove her case.
Hence, the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer against the
appellant is vitiated by malice and the order of removal from service
passed against the appellant is illegal and bad in law. Therefore, the
learned single judge failed to look into this point and wrongly dismissed
the writ petition filed by the appellant.
d) For that the learned single judge failed to appreciate that the order of
removal from service of the appellant dated 24/12/2012 issued by the
Chairman and Disciplinary Authority is vitiated by malice since none of the
management witnesses (MWs) was able to prove the signature of the
appellant in the Counter foil dated 21/02/2011. Thus, the impugned
judgment and order dated 06/08/2018 passed by the learned single judge
is bad in law and liable to be set aside and quashes.
Page | 6
(e)For that the learned single judge erred in law as it failed to appreciate
that the Disciplinary authority misconstrue the allegation of misconduct on
the part of the appellant and could not properly proved the allegation of
misconduct on the part of the appellant and illegally passed the impugned
order of removal from service dated 24/12/2012. Hence, the order of
removal from service dated 24/12/2012 issued by the Chairman and
Disciplinary authority, Assam Vikash Bank is not sustainable in the eye of
law and liable to be set aside and quashed.
(f) For that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the quantum
of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is not proportionate
to the quantum of offence alleged by the Respondent's Bank. Further, the
Appellate authority also without considering the petition of the appellant
mechanically rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the impugned
judgment dated 06/08/21018 passed by the learned single judge as well
as the impugned order of removal from service dated 24/12/12 issued by
the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank is bad
in law and liable to be set aside and quashed.
(g)For that in any view of the matter the impugned judgment and order
dated 06/08/2018 passed by the learned single judge is absolutely
erroneous and cannot be sustained in law.
(h)For that in the interest of justice, the learned single judge ought to
have allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant for the ends of justice.
Page | 7
(i) For that the impugned order of the learned single Judge has caused
denial of justice besides causing miscarriage of justice. And as such the
impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside."
3. Before us, the arguments urged before the learned Single Judge
were reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted
that the Enquiry Officer did not respond to the prayer of the appellant for
summoning the vital witnesses as proposed by her to prove her case. The
further arguments on behalf of the appellant is that the impugned order of
removal dated 24.12.2012 issued by the Chairman and Disciplinary
Authority is vitiated by malice as none of the Management Witnesses were
able to prove the signature of the appellant in the counterfoil dated
21.02.2011. It is urged that the allegation of misconduct was never proved
during the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order of
removal dated 24.12.2012 should therefore be interfered with, set aside
and quashed. It was also urged that the appellate authority rejected the
appeal preferred by the appellant mechanically and without due
consideration. These aspects not having been examined by the learned
Single Judge, the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge should also be interfered with and set aside. The learned
counsel for the appellant also relies upon the Judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Ors. Vs.
Page | 8
Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 469 to contend that the
appellate authority must provide detailed reasons and they are required to
give reasons while confirming views of the Disciplinary Authority.
4. Per contra, Mr. T. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the
Bank disputes the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant. It is submitted that the enquiry proceedings were conducted as
per the procedure prescribed and the allegations against the appellant
were proved by the Management Witnesses. It is urged that the enquiry
proceedings, the enquiry report and the depositions are part of the writ
petition and therefore, the learned Single Judge upon due examination of
the relevant materials available has correctly rendered the Judgment which
is impugned in the present appeal. The learned counsel for the
respondents submits that there is no infirmity in the Judgment rendered by
the learned Single Judge and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and
should be dismissed.
5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent
relied up the Judgment of this Court rendered in State of Tripura and
Ors. Vs. Remendra Nath Dey, reported in (2001) 1 GLR 54.
Page | 9
6. The pleadings on record as well as the enquiry report and the
depositions of the witnesses enclosed to the writ appeal have been
carefully perused.
7. The Article of charges and the statement of allegations on which the
Articles of charges are based against the appellant, which was served on
the appellant by communication dated 13.10.2011 reads as under:
"Articles of charges:
During the tenure of your service as Office assistant at Bank's
Morigaon Branch, you failed to take all possible steps to ensure
and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge your duty
with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence in as much
as: - (1) On 21.02.2011, one of the customers of your branch
namely Sri Sudish Kumar Gupta (SB A/C No-11938) came to the
branch for opening a RIPC A/C for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one
lakh) but inadvertently the said amount was deposited in his SB
A/C No-11938, When the mistake came to your notice, you
advised Sri Gupta to withdraw the amount from his SB A/C so
that he would able to open the RIPC A/C. Accordingly, Sri Gupta
wrote an withdrawal form for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)
and handed over the same to you along with a deposit pay in slip
Page | 10
meant for opening a RIPC A/C. On receipt of the withdrawal form
and deposit pay-in -slip, you issued the party's portion of the
deposit pay-in-slip to Sri Gupta with your initial as token of
receipt of money but no stamp was affixed on the counterfoil.
Thereafter, Sri Gupta left the branch, as if would take time for
preparation of RIPC certificate. In the mean time, you posted the
withdrawal form in the account as Operator using ID-
SWAPN00459 and Sri Krishna Kanta Das, Asstt. Manager passed
the withdrawal for payment as Supervisor using ID-
KRISH00081. But Passing Officer and Cashier of the branch did
not know the fact that the withdrawal amount would remain with
the branch for opening a RIPC A/C in the name of Sri Gupta. You
also issued Token No.129 against the withdrawal. It is reported
that as per your instruction, Sri Puheswar Sukai, who was in
charge of the cash paid the withdrawal amount to Md Fakaruddin
(a member of a farmers club) and in turn, Md. Fakaruddin
handed over the money to you. Thus, you misappropriated the
Bank's money of Rs-1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) instead of
opening the RIPC A/C on that day.
Page | 11
After a few days i.e. on 17.03.2011, Sri Sudish Kumar Gupta
came to the branch and applied for one LAD against his RIPC
A/C, which was opened on 21.02.2011. He also submitted the
original counterfoil issued by you along with the application as
the RIPC receipt was not delivered to him on that day. Then
branch people searched the RIPC A/C but no record of opening
of the account was found in his name on that day. The matter
was discussed among the staff members as to how it happened.
After verification of the counterfoil submitted by Sri Gupta, the
other staff member of the branch came to know the fact that you
were involved in the process and you had grabbed the sum of
Rs.100,000/-without opening the account. Considering the utter
consequence, you refunded the misappropriated money
Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) to the branch on 18.03.2011 in
presence of other staff members and opened a RIPC A/C in the
name of Sri Sudish Kumar Gupta.
By doing so, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh) was
misappropriated by you for the period from 21.02.2011 to
17.03.2011, which tarnished the goodwill and Image of the Bank
in the eye of public.
Page | 12
Statement of allegations on which Articles of Charges are
based:
It is alleged that during your tenure as Office Assistant (Multi
purpose) at Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Morigaon Branch, you
committed serious and gross irregularities and also
misappropriated Bank's money. The details of irregularities
committed by you are given here under: -
(1) On 21.02.2011, one of the customers of your branch namely
Sri Sudish Kumar Gupta (SB A/C No-11938) came to the branch
for opening a RIPC A/C for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh) but
inadvertently the said amount was deposited in his SB A/C No-
11938. When the mistake came to your notice, you advised Sri
Gupta to withdraw the amount from his SB A/C so that he would
able to open the RIPC A/C. Accordingly, Sri Gupta wrote an
withdrawal form for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) and handed
over the same to you along with a deposit pay in slip meant for
opening a RIPC A/C. On receipt of the withdrawal form and
deposit pay-in-slip, you issued the party's portion of the deposit
pay-in-slip to Sri Gupta with your initial as token of receipt of
money but no stamp was affixed on the counterfoil. Thereafter,
Page | 13
Sri Gupta left the branch, as it would take time for preparation of
RIPC certificate. In the mean time, you posted the withdrawal
form in the account as Operator using ID-SWAPN00459 and Sri
Krishna Kanta Das, Asstt. Manager passed the withdrawal for
payment as Supervisor using ID-KRISHO0081. But Passing
Officer and Cashier of the branch did not know the fact that the
withdrawal amount would remain with the branch for opening a
RIPC A/C in the name of Sri Gupta. You also issued Token
No.129 against the withdrawal. It is reported that as per your
instruction, Sri Puheswar Sukai, who was in charge of the cash
paid the withdrawal amount to Md Fakaruddin (a member of a
farmers club) and in turn, Md. Fakaruddin handed over the
money to you. Thus, you misappropriated the Bank's money of
Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) instead of opening the RIPC A/C
on that day.
After a few days i.e. on 17.03.2011, Sri Sudish Kumar Gupta
came to the branch and applied for one LAD against his RIPC
A/C, which was opened on 21.02.2011. He also submitted the
original counterfoil issued by you along with the application as
the RIPC receipt was not delivered to him on that day. Then
Page | 14
branch people searched the RIPC A/C but no record of opening
of the account was found in his name on that day. The matter
was discussed among the staff members as to how it happened.
After verification of the counterfoil submitted by Sri Gupta, the
other staff member of the branch came to know the fact that you
were involved in the process and you had grabbed the sum of
Rs.100,000/-without opening the account. Considering the utter
consequence, you refunded the misappropriated money
Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) to the branch on 18.03.2011 in
presence of other staff members and opened a RIPC A/C in the
name of Sri Sudish Kumar Gupta.
By doing so, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-( Rupees one lakh) was
misappropriated by you for the period from 21.02.2011 to
17.03.2011, which tarnished the goodwill and image of the Bank
in the eye of public.
Thus you have grossly violated the regulation 18 and 20 of
Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service
Regulations, 2010; which attracts penalties under regulation
39.2 (b) of the said Service Regulations."
Page | 15
8. The said communication also enclosed the list of documents on which
the Articles of charges are framed against the appellant as well as the list
of witnesses to be relied upon by the Bank.
9. In her written statements, she stated that the concerned customer of
the Bank namely Shri Sudish Kr. Gupta along with his friend one Md.
Fakaruddin came to the bank and deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in
his SB Account. However, he in fact wanted to deposit the amount for
opening an RIPC account. Accordingly, the said amount was withdrawn
from his SB account and for opening the RIPC account, the money was
handed over to the said Md Fakaruddin who was stated to be a friend of
this concerned customer. It was stated in her written statements that on
the request of said Md Fakaruddin, who was a representative of the bank
customer Shri Gupta, a deposit pay-in-slip was written by the appellant and
handed over to the said person for depositing the amount again in the cash
counter. However, the amount could not be deposited as the said customer
Shri Gupta had left the bank and his signature could not be obtained for
opening and depositing the amount in the RIPC Account. The amount was
left with the said Md. Fakaruddin who also could not deposit the said
amount and left the bank. It is stated by the appellant in her written
statement that her entire role on the concerned date namely 21.02.2011
Page | 16
was just to prepare the deposit pay-in-slip at the request of the said Md.
Fakaruddin who was a representative of Shri Gupta. In so far as the
allegation of postings of the withdrawal form by the appellant is concerned,
it was stated that since the money deposited in the SB Account was
withdrawn, accordingly, such posting of withdrawal form in the account as
an operator by the appellant was perfectly in order and the same is not an
act of impropriety. It is further stated that the said customer Shri Gupta
later returned to the bank along with his representative Md. Fakaruddin
and thereupon having learnt that the amount had not been deposited in
the Bank by Md. Fakaruddin to whom he had handed over the deposit pay-
in-slip, the concerned customer Shri Gupta went to Mr. Fakaruddin who
arranged the money and came to the bank along with Shri Gupta. Shri
Gupta in turn requested the appellant to expedite the matter by taking the
money from him and depositing the same in the cash counter from inside
which the appellant did in his presence in order to help a customer of the
bank. The appellant submits that her act of helping a customer of the bank
cannot be termed as an act of impropriety.
10. Upon perusal of the depositions enclosed to the writ petition, it is
seen that MW-1 and M.W.-3 have identified the signature of the appellant
on the said deposit slip. In his deposition, MW-1 further stated that in a
Page | 17
letter received from one Shir Dilip Kr. Bhuyan who is the CC of the AGVB,
Morigaon Branch, it was stated that he had received Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash
from the appellant in the cash counter in the name of Shri Sudish Kr. Gupta
as RIP deposit and in the meeting which was conducted by the Branch
Manager on that evening, the appellant had stated that she deposited the
amount of RIP in the counter on 18.03.2011 to the said Shri Dilip Kr
Bhuyan on that day. M.W.-1 also deposed that the hand writing on the
counterfoil dated 21.02.2011 is that of the appellant.
11. From a minute perusal of the depositions of the M.W-1, 2 & 3 which
are enclosed to the writ petition, it is seen that there is a doubt with regard
to the signature of the appellant on the RIPC deposit slip. But there is no
dispute from the depositions as it is revealed that the appellant had
received the amount from the said customer and/or his representative Md
Fakaruddin for deposit into the RIPC account of the Customer Shri Sudish
Kr Gupta. It is also seen from the depositions that subsequently when the
customer applied for a loan and the bank authorities could not locate his
RIPC account in the bank records and it was revealed that no RIPC account
was opened in the name of Shri Sudish Kr. Gupta. However, on the same
date the account was opened and the amount was deposited by the
appellant, although it is stated by the appellant that the amount was not
Page | 18
withheld by her but the same was deposited at the request of the customer
Shri Gupta and his representative Md Fakaruddin.
12. What has, however, not been pleaded by the appellant before this
Court as well as before the learned Single Judge is the nature of duties
allotted to her by the bank. It is not the pleaded case of the appellant that
she was required to deposit cash amounts on any such requests made by
the customer of the bank. It is not denied that the deposit slip was
prepared by the appellant and that the same was a part of her routine duty
as an employee of the bank.
13. On the contrary, the appellant states that she had prepared the
deposit slip and/or put her signature only at the request of the customer. It
is not denied that the appellant did not put her signature in the said
deposit slip. It is not averred that such deposits can be made by employees
of the bank like the appellant as and when such requests are made by the
customers of the bank as it is a normal practice adopted by the bank.
14. In respect of an employee of the bank, the conduct of the employee
during his/her service tenure in the bank must repose confidence in the
banking authorities. Where the employee during his/her tenure in the bank
conducts in a manner which shakes the very confidence of the bank on the
Page | 19
said employee, the banking authorities would be within their rights to
proceed for departmental enquiries against such an employee subject of
course to the prescribed procedures.
15. In the present proceedings, where there is a specific statement by
the appellant that she had filled up the deposit slip and had deposited the
amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash at the request of the concerned
customer, it was also incumbent on the appellant to refer to the
procedures and the practice followed in the bank that such was an
accepted practice followed by the concerned bank viz-a-viz their
customers. No such averments or references have been made by the
appellant.
16. In view of such statements made by the appellant herself that she
had filled up or entered particulars on the deposit slip and had also made a
cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the request of the customer concerned,
the initiation or proceedings by the bank authorities on the ground of
temporary misappropriation cannot be said to be contrary to any provision
of the rules as no such averments have been made by the appellant
herself.
Page | 20
17. In State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde,
reported in (2006) 7 SCC 212 , the apex court had held that bank
officials are required to maintain the highest discipline and repose
confidence of the banking authorities as well as that of the customers.
18. In Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Ors reported
in (2021) 3 SCC 806 , the Apex Court held that any deviation from the
procedural guidelines of the Bank would lead to erosion of public trust of
the Banks
19. In State of Meghalaya and Ors. Vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak ,
reported in (2008) 7 SCC 580, 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.
20. The Judgment in Regional Manager UP SRTC, Etawah and Ors.
Vs. Hoti Lal and Anr, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 605 which was also
relied upon by the appellant in support of her contentions rather holds that
the scope of judicial review in respect of penalty and punishment is
extremely limited and restricted to exceptional cases. Where the Court
Page | 21
holds the punishment to be not commensurate with the charges, reasons
must be given for coming to such a finding.
21. In State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. Umesh, reported in (2022)
6 SCC 563, the apex court held that in exercise of judicial review the court
does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary
authority nor does it re-appreciate evidence on the basis of which findings
of misconduct have been arrived at in the course of disciplinary enquiry. A
writ court in exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine
whether (i) Rules of natural have been complied with, (II) Findings of
misconduct is based on some evidence, (iii) Statutory rules governing the
conduct of disciplinary enquiry were followed (iv) findings of disciplinary
authority suffers from perversity and (v) penalties disproportionate to be
proved misconduct.
22. In the present proceedings as discussed above, the appellant has not
urged that the act of signing on the deposit slip and making the cash
deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the request of the concerned customer is not
in conflict with the prescribed procedures and rules followed by the bank.
No reference has been made to the rules or procedures followed by the
Bank to show that the Act of the appellant was not contrary to such Rules
and Procedure prescribed as followed by the bank in their day to day
Page | 22
transactions viz-a-viz the customers of the bank. The appellant has also
not been able to urge specifically the nature of her duties in the bank more
particularly with regard to the act of preparing the deposit slip and making
a cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the request of the customer Shri Gupta
and/or his representative Md. Fakaruddin. The depositions of the
witnesses on the basis of which the enquiry report has been submitted,
read with the written statements of the appellant reveals that the appellant
had admitted to filling up or preparing the deposit slip as well as making
the cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- albeit at the request of the concerned
customer namely Shri Gupta and his representative Shri Fakaruddin.
Nowhere has it been explained by the appellant regarding the term used
by her- "preparing the deposit slip". In the absence of any such
explanations, the depositions of MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3 cannot be
disregarded. Such conduct is viewed by the bank as unbecoming of an
employee of the bank as the customer was given to understand that his
RIPC account was opened and since he had to proceed to his native place
for urgent works, the receipt of the RIPC would be handed over to him
upon his returned from his native place. However, the fact remains that on
the day when the customer had visited the bank and requested the
appellant to deposit the amount in his RIPC account, the same was not
Page | 23
done and the amount was subsequently deposited by the appellant, which
is also admitted by the appellant. Although the appellant in her defence
submits that the amount having not been able to be deposited in the RIPC
account, the same was returned back to the representative of Shri Gupta
i.e., Shri Fakaruddin, there was no explanation as to why on a subsequent
date the appellant had personally deposited the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
in cash for opening the RIPC account of Shri Gupta. In the absence of
better explanation before the enquiry officer as well as in her written
statements, the conclusion of the enquiry officer that the amount was
withheld by the appellant between 21.02.2011 to 17.03.2011 cannot be
held to be devoid of any evidence.
23. The perusal of the depositions as well as the enquiry report does not
reveal that there was any violation of natural justice in respect of the
appellant. There is no averment either in the writ petition or in the appeal
before us that statutory Rules governing the procedure of disciplinary
proceedings have not been followed or has been violated. Although, it is
pleaded that the punishment imposed is disproportionate. There are also
no averments that the punishment imposed on the appellant is not
prescribed under the Rules. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said
that the enquiry conducted and the punishment imposed are perverse.
Page | 24
24. In view of our findings as such, we see no reason to interfere with
the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge. As have been held
in Remendra Nath Dey (Supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has held that unless there is a patent error on the face of the record and
which is against the established and settled principles of law, the findings
of the learned Single Judge in an intra-Court appeal ought not to be
interfered with.
25. We find that the learned Single Judge has taken a possible view and
therefore, we decline to interfere with the views and conclusions arrived at
by the learned Single Judge. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge is
therefore upheld and sustained.
26. In view of our discussions above, we find no merit in the appeal to
interfere with the views and conclusions arrived at by the learned Single
Judge vide the impugned Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2018.
Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No
order as to cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
Page | 25
