Gamanbhai Ravishankar Joshi vs State Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 8123 Guj

     C/SCA/16439/2020                               ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16439 of 2020
==========================================================
                        GAMANBHAI RAVISHANKAR JOSHI
                                   Versus
                            STATE BANK OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NARENDRA JAIN ADVOCATE for
MS HETVI H SANCHETI(5618) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                                Date : 09/07/2021

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 09.03.2013 passed by the

Appellate Authority & Deputy General Manager (B&O),

State Bank of India confirming the order dated

31.10.2012 removing the petitioner from service passed

by the Disciplinary Authority and Assistant General

Manager (RBO-2) Bhavnagar whereby the petitioner was

removed from the service in terms of Clause : 6(b) of the

Memorandum of Settlement on the Disciplinary Action

Procedure for workmen whereby the present petitioner

was removed from service with superannuation benefits

i.e. pension and / or Provident Fund and gratuity as would

C/SCA/16439/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

be dubbed otherwise under the Rules or Regulations

prevailing at the relevant time and without

disqualification from future employment.

2. Since the orders passed by the respondents in the

year 2012 and 2013 are sought to be challenged by way

of present petition in the year 2020, the Coordinate

Bench of this Court, on 21.12.2020 passed the following

order.

"1) The petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

"A. To admit and allow the present petition;

B. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.03.2020 (09.03.2013) passed by the Appellate Authority & Deputy General Manager (B&O) State Bank of India and also the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority & Assistant General Manager (RBO-2), Bhavnagar and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service and be given all consequential benefits;

C/SCA/16439/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

C. To pass any other and further order that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2) Learned advocate Mr.Narendra Jain appearing with learned advocate Ms.Hetvi Sancheti for the petitioner requires time to substantiate the oral say of illness of the wife of the petitioner for challenging the order of the Year 2013 in the Year 2020 and to satisfy the court on legal aspect to condone this huge period. At their request, let the matter be posted on 23.12.2020." (emphasis applied)

[In the aforesaid order, while reproducing the

prayer made in the petition, due to typographical

error 'date has been wrongly mentioned as

'09.03.2020' instead of '09.03.2013']

2.1 Then on 23.12.2020 passed the following order

"Mr.Narendra Jain, learned advocate, seeks time to substantiate the cause for delay in filing the petition as recorded in the order dated 21.12.2020.

Stand over to 11.01.2021."

2.2 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned advocate

Mr.Narendra Jain for learned advocate Ms.Hetvi Sancheti

C/SCA/16439/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

produced on record "ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS OF

THE PETITIONER" along with annexures in the form of

prescriptions and pathological report of the wife of the

petitioner.

2.3 The petitioner though vide order dated 23.12.2020

was given sufficient opportunity to explain the delay has

explained the delay in one paragraph by way of

"ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER"

which reads as under, more particularly in para:2:

"2. It is submitted that, when the petitioner was in service at the respondent bank the wife of the petitioner was suffering from a brain stoke and her body was almost completely paralyzed. A copy of medical papers of wife of the petitioner is annexed hereto and marked as "Annexure-A1"."

2.4 A bare perusal at the annexures to the

"ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE

PETITIONER" would indicate that the documents

produced by the petitioner are in the form of

prescriptions of doctor who was treating petitioner's wife.

C/SCA/16439/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

Amongst those documents, there is also discharge

summary of patient viz. Joshi Vanita Gamanbhai which

indicates that she was admitted to Meru Nursing Home,

Bhavnagar and was undergoing treatment of Dr.Dijesh K.

Shah, Consultant Neurological and Spinal Surgeon where

the wife of the petitioner was admitted for four days i.e.

from 13.04.2015 to 16.04.2015. Even as per the

discharge summary, at the bottom of the discharge

summary, under the head "advice" there are only general

advices given to the wife of the petitioner while

discharging which indicates that there was no advice for

bed-rest which may even remotely indicate that the wife

of the petitioner was bed ridden for substantially long

period and therefore petitioner could not approach this

Court in time. Even the prescriptions and pathological

report also indicate that wife of the petitioner though was

undergoing treatment, it seems that treatment was taken

only once or twice in a year, may be for routine check-up

as the prescriptions are of the years 2015, 2018 and 2019

which would not help the petitioner to explain as to why

the orders passed in the year 2012 and 2013 were

C/SCA/16439/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

challenged in the year 2020 as those documents do not

substantiate the claim of the petitioner that the wife of

the petitioner was suffering from brain-stock and her

body was "almost completely paralised" and,

therefore, present petition deserves to be dismissed on

account of delay only as the same is not sufficiently

explained.

3. However, since the petition pertains to removal of

the petitioner from service, this Court thought it fit to

examine the matter even on merits along with the aspect

of delay and hence Mr.Narendra L. Jain, learned advocate

was permitted to argue on merits as well, along with the

aspect of delay.

4. Before considering the arguments of learned

advocate Mr.Jain, the factual matrix of the petition is

required to be seen. The same are as under:

4.1 The petitioner joined the service of respondent Bank

in the year 1995 as Peon and according to the petitioner

he was performing his duty to satisfaction of his superior.

While the petitioner was serving as Peon in

C/SCA/16439/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

Nondhanvadar Branch from 02.08.2004 to 21.12.2011.

During that period, it was alleged that the petitioner had

misused the per-signed cheques of the customer of the

Bank and withdrew the amount of Rs.70,000/- in all. One

cheque was withdrwan from the savings bank account of

one customer of Nondhanvadar Branch viz. Kanjibhai

Virjibhai Solanki from whose account petitioner withdrew

Rs.30,000/- and another customer of Kalanala Branch viz.

Kurjibhai Patel from whose account petitioner withdrew

sum of Rs.40,000/-.

4.2 When such action was noticed, the petitioner himself

confessed about such act committed by him vide letter

dated 17.12.2011 addressing to the Branch Manager, SBI

Nondhanvadar Branch.

4.3 Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 28.04.2012

issued to the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted and

as such principles of natural justice was duly complied

with. The Inquiry Officer, vide inquiry report dated

29.08.2012 held all the three charges against the

petitioner 'proved' and thereafter on the basis of the

C/SCA/16439/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

charges proved against the petitioner, the petitioner was

removed from services with superannuation benefits i.e.

pension, provident fund and gratuity as would be due

otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at the

relevant time and without disqualification from future

employment. The said punishment was imposed upon the

petitioner vide order dated 31.10.2012.

4.4 The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said

order to the Appellate Authority and Deputy General

Manager (B&O) State Bank of India, Bhavnagar, who, in

turn, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 09.03.2013

and, therefore, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied

with the aforesaid two orders, 31.10.2012 passed by the

Disciplinary Authority and Assistant General Manager

(RBO-2) State Bank of India, Bhavnagar and Appellate

Authority and Deputy General Manager (B&O) State Bank

of India, Bhavnagar, the petitioner preferred the present

petition challenging the aforesaid two orders of 2012 and

2013 in the year 2013 i.e. almost after seven years.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Narendra Jain for

C/SCA/16439/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

learned advocate Mr.Hetvi Sancheti for the petitioner.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Jain submitted that

considering the condition of the wife of the petitioner,

case of the petitioner was required to be considered

sympathetically by the Disciplinary Authority as well as

the Appellate Authority. Mr.Jain further submitted that

there are no direct evidence against the petitioner to the

effect that he has siphoned the amount and, therefore,

benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the present

petitioner. According to Mr.Jain, punishment imposed

upon the petitioner is excessive and there are no direct

evidence against the petitioner. In such circumstances,

punishment imposed upon the petitioner is too harsh and

the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. No other

or further arguments were advanced by learned advocate

Mr.Jain, nor he has relied upon any Staff Regulation or

Disciplinary Rules of Bank nor cited any judgment in

support of his submissions.

6. As stated in forgoing paras, there is no sufficient

justification coming forward from the petitioner's side to

C/SCA/16439/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

explain the delay of seven years. The explanation

tendered by the petitioner cannot be said to be

convincing explanation in view of this Court. Apart from

the aspect of delay, even if the case of the petitioner is

examined on merits, it is well settled by now that in a

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

when a proper disciplinary inquiry is held against the

petitioner / delinquent, and principles of natural justice

are duly complied with by the authority (respondent bank

authority herein), this Court cannot sit as an Appellate

Authority over the findings of Inquiry Officer and re-

appreciate the evidence.

6.1 Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer has noted that the

petitioner himself has, in writing, confessed about his act

of stealing the cheques of customers of the Bank and has

siphoned total amount of Rs.70,000/- and, therefore,

respondents were justified in imposing the punishment of

removing the petitioner from the service. The banking

industry is an industry which requires absolutely honest

staff as it provides financial services and any person

having dishonest intention or with a tainted past cannot

C/SCA/16439/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

be permitted to continue in service and, therefore, the

respondents have rightly removed the petitioner from the

services, and hence punishment imposed upon the

petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate or harsh.

6.2 Therefore, when all the three charges against the

petitioner are held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer

and substantially confirmed by the Appellate Authority,

the punishment imposed by the petitioner is absolutely

just, legal and proper and hence I do not find any reason

to interfere with the impugned orders dated 09.03.2013

passed by the Appellate Authority & Deputy General

Manager (B&O), State Bank of India and dated

31.10.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and

Assistant General Manager (RBO-2) Bhavnagar .

7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition

deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.

No order as to costs.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) MISHRA AMIT V.