Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar Nag vs Canara Bank on 22 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 4716 of 2011
Dilip Kumar Nag, son of Late Lal Mohan Nag, resident of Quarter
No. F-101, Phase-IV, Ashok Vihar, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S.
Argora, District Ranchi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Canara Bank, 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore, 560002, P.O. Bangalore,
P.S. J.C. Road, Bangalore, Karnataka
2. Appellate Authority-cum-Executive Director, Canara Bank, Head
Office 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore, P.O. Bangalore, P.S. J.C. Road,
District Bangalore, State Karnataka
3. General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Canara Bank,
Industrial Relations Section, Personnel Wing, Head Office 112,
J.C. Road, Bangalore, P.O. Bangalore, P.S. J.C. Road, District
Bangalore, State Karnataka
4. Deputy General Manager, Human Resources Management Section,
Canara Bank, Circle Office, Kadru Bypass Road, P.O. & P.S.
Dorada, District Ranchi ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Ms. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
---
03/22.09.2022
1. Heard Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"(a) For quashing the order dated 3.2.2007 issued by the
Disciplinary authority in term of which the petitioner has
been imposed a punishment of removal from service; and
(b) For quashing the order dated 24.4.2008 contained
issued by the Appellate Authority in terms of which the
appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and
the punishment of removal from service has been upheld;
and
(C) Upon quashing both the aforesaid orders dated
3.2.2007 and 24.4.2008 be further pleased to direct the
concerned respondents to immediately and forthwith
reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential
benefits and back wages;
AND/OR
For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s) or
direction(s) or order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit
and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a
charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner as contained in
Annexure-3 making as many as three charges in connection
with disbursement of loan to various borrowers while the
petitioner was posted as Senior Manager in Canara Bank,
Golmuri Branch, Jamshedpur. She submits that the petitioner
had duly participated in the disciplinary proceedings and a large
number of documents were exhibited by the Management as
well as the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority
ultimately found the petitioner guilty in terms of the findings of
the enquiry officer. She submits that the petitioner was also
granted opportunity to respond to the findings of the enquiry
officer and ultimately the disciplinary authority has passed the
order of punishment of 'removal from service which shall not
be a disqualification for future employment' after agreeing with
the findings of the enquiry officer. The order of punishment is
contained at Annexure-7 which is dated 3rd February, 2007. The
learned counsel further submits that the petitioner filed his
appeal and the appellate authority issued a notice for personal
hearing dated 30.07.2007 (Annexure-9) and thereafter appellate
authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had acted
in a bona fide manner in the matter of disbursement of loan and
accordingly, the punishment imposed against the petitioner is
shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the
petitioner and some of the charges were not even proved and
therefore, the impugned order of punishment calls for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court
finds that no arguments have been advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner alleging violation of principles of
natural justice or any perversity or material irregularity in the
disciplinary proceedings and the order passed by the
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate proceedings and
the order passed by the appellate authority. However, learned
counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the
punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the allegations
proved against the petitioner.
7. This Court has gone through the records of this case and the
impugned orders. Upon perusal of the appellate order, this
Court finds that there were proved serious allegations against
the petitioner in the matter of disbursement/dealing with the
money of the bank. The authorities have considered the case of
the petitioner in details and have given concurrent findings with
regards to the charges which were proved against the petitioner.
8. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while
exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the
role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is
circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural
errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of
natural justice and interference can be made when the
punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proved
charges.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Deputy General
Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajai Kumar
Srivastava" reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612- paragraph 42, has
held that in banking business, absolute devotion and integrity is
a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires the
employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and
considering the fact that the employee of the bank is dealing
with money of the depositors and the customers, the confidence
of the public/depositors is important.
Even when there is no pecuniary loss to the bank, the same has
no bearing in the departmental proceedings. Reference may be
made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India and Others Vs. M. Duraisamy
(Civil Appeal No. 2665 of 2022) and also the judgement of
Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in
(2006) 10 SCC 572.
10.This Court is of the considered view that there is neither any
error of law nor any procedural error leading to manifest
injustice nor any violation of principles of natural justice in the
matter of disciplinary proceedings and in the order of
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and upheld
by the appellate authority. The findings of the enquiry officer
are based on appreciation of cogent materials on record and the
findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate
authority are well reasoned order considering the materials on
record.
11. This Court is of the considered view that the punishment of
dismissal, which would not be an impediment in his future
employment is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the
case when the petitioner was dealing with money of the bank.
No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is made out on the point of punishment as argued by
the learned counsel for the petitioner.
12.As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this writ
petition is dismissed.
13.Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
