K P Singh State Bank Of Saurashtra vs State Bank Of Saurashtra Now Sbi
2021 Latest Caselaw 16210 Guj

      C/SCA/295/2009                                JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 295 of 2009


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV                         sd/-

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                 NO
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                          NO

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                NO
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                NO
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                 K P SINGH STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA
                                Versus
             STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA NOW SBI & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL(707) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                               Date : 14/10/2021

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is to quash and set aside the letter dated 17.07.2008 and the penalty order dated 23.07.2004 and the order of the appellate authority dated 17.12.2004.

       C/SCA/295/2009                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2021



2.       Facts in brief are as under:


2.1      The petitioner at the relevant time was serving as Assistant

Manager at C.P. Branch of the State Bank of Saurashtra, New Delhi. On 07.03.2002, a charge-sheet was issued to the him containing the charge that while he was working as the Assistant Manager, he committed an act of misconduct by depositing a cheque bearing no. 662821 of Rs. 8651/- in his personal Citibank credit card account instead of Citibank account. The cheque was so issued by the C.P. Branch of the State Bank of Saurashtra towards refund of excess amount paid by Citibank to the State Bank of Saurashtra for the purchase of Demand Drafts.

2.2 To the charge-sheet, the petitioner filed a reply on 20.03.2002. Thereafter a departmental proceeding was held wherein the charge so levelled was held as proved. By an order dated 23.07.2004, the petitioner was inflicted with a penalty of reduction in pay to the initial stage in his present time scale i.e. initial stage in JMGS-I with effect from the date of the order.

2.3 On an appeal being filed, the appellate authority by an order of 17.12.2004 dismissed the appeal. On a representation made to the Central Government, Ministry of Finance, the State Bank by a letter dated 17.07.2008 communicated to the petitioner that his representation has been rejected.

3. Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner challenged the order of penalty and submitted that the incident was of 09.06.1999 whereas the charge-sheet was issued on 07.03.2002. Hence there was a delay and on this ground the order of penalty be quashed and

C/SCA/295/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2021

set aside. He would further submit that the order of the appellate authority suffers from non application of mind inasmuch as no reasons have been recorded nor any evidence discussed while confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. In this regard, he has relied on a decision in the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Others vs. Madhusudhan Rao [2008 AIR SCW 1365] .

3.1 Mr. Gohil would further submit that the charge of the petitioner depositing the banker's cheque in his personal credit card account is baseless. In fact an employee of the Citibank had visited the branch of the petitioner and in addition to the Banker's cheque of Rs. 8651/-, he had also given his savings bank account cheque and it is the Citibank employee's negligence that both the cheques were credited in the credit card account of the petitioner. That he was not in any way involved is apparent according to Mr. Gohil from the letters that the petitioner addressed to the Citibank on 07.07.1999, 21.07.1999 and 15.10.1999 informing the Bank that they must reverse the entry of Rs.8651/- wrongly deposited in the credit card account of the petitioner.

3.2 Mr. Gohil would submit that even the Inquiry Officer's findings are based on no evidence inasmuch as the primary evidence i.e. the banker's cheque of Rs. 8651/- and the credit voucher were found missing during the course of inquiry. He would invite the court's attention to the observations of the Inquiry Officer to Clause 9 of the important points that the Inquiry Officer has noted regarding non-availability of the cheque. He would further submit that even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, the charge cannot be held to be proved merely on the ground of circumstantial evidence.

C/SCA/295/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2021

4. Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate appearing for the Bank would draw the attention of the court to the affidavit-in-reply filed and submit that on 14.05.1999, the Citibank had requested to issue 13 drafts by presenting a cheque of Rs.2,84,08,814/-. There was a difference of Rs.8651/- as having been collected in excess by the State Bank which ought to have been refunded to the Citibank and accordingly the petitioner who was at the relevant time the dealing officer of the bank signed the banker's cheque of Rs.8651/- for issuance to the Citibank. It was later revealed that the banker's cheque was deposited into the credit card account of the petitioner which was confirmed by the Bank.

4.1 On 09.06.1999, the amounts were deposited and were reflected in the statement of accounts of the petitioner's credit card statement and also a withdrawal of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively immediately after two days on 11.06.1999 would indicate the complicity of the petitioner. She would invite the attention of the Court to the findings of the Inquiry Officer and submit that the statement POEX-6 of the credit card would indicate such a figure of deposit of Rs.8651/- which was substantially enough to prove the charge in question. She would rely on a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava [Civil Appeal Nos. 17-18 of 2021 decided on 05.01.2021], particularly paras 23 to 25 to indicate that in the matters of disciplinary inquiries under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should not exercise jurisdiction akin to that of the appellate authority.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and reading the findings of the Inquiry Officer's report, the following undisputed chain of events emerge:

C/SCA/295/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2021

(a) On 14.05.1995, the Citibank requested to issue 13 drafts by presenting a cheque of Rs.2,84,08,814/-.

(b) As the excess of Rs.8651/- had to be refunded by way of a banker's cheque, in the capacity of the officer incharge of the Bank, a Demand Draft was issued on that day and the petitioner signed the banker's cheque no. 662821 for Rs.8651/- in favour of Citibank.

(c) Admittedly, though the Inquiry Officer found the primary evidence of the banker's cheque and the credit voucher of the Citibank missing and therefore rightly held that a doubt was created, however, based on the documentary evidence in the document being POEX-6, it was categorically clear that the banker's cheque was deposited on 09.06.1999 in the credit card account of the petitioner. On the deposit of this amount, on 11.06.1999 two installments of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- were withdrawn. On the defence of the petitioner that he had written letters to the Citibank to reverse the entries, no such document except postal acknowledgments of UPC were produced by the petitioner which did not successfully dislodge the burden against him.

6. Based on these evidences perusal of the disciplinary authority's order would indicate that for the amount so involved, the disciplinary authority took a lenient view of the matter and imposed a penalty of reduction in pay.

7. As far as the order of the appellate authority suffering from the vice of being unreasoned, when on the basis of the Inquiry Officer's report, the disciplinary authority gave a detailed decision which the

C/SCA/295/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2021

appellate authority had endorsed, in the opinion of this court no separate and detailed reasons need to be enumerated. Even otherwise the same reasons are indicated as is evident from the order of the appellate authority dated 17.10.2004 which records the observations of the appellate authority that the Inquiry Officer gave reasonable opportunities to the charged sheeted officer who was unable to contradict the evidences recorded and the Inquiry Officer's report was supported by the reasons and there was no reason to disbelieve the findings of the officer. Looking to the limited scope of examination of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority imposing penalty in question.

8. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated. No costs.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA