Jharkhand High Court
Bhagirath Keshri vs Jharkhand Gramin Bank Through Its ... on 12 June, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
--------
L.P.A. No. 410 of 2023
With
I.A. No.10216 of 2023
------
Bhagirath Keshri, aged about 64 years, son of Late Puran Chandra Keshri,
resident of Subhnath Deogam Nagar, Dumbisai, Tungri, Chaibasa, P.O.
Chaibasa, P.S. Muffasil, District West Singhbhum-833201 (Jharkhand).
... ... Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand Gramin Bank through its Chairman, having its office at
Rajendra Palace, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District
Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand).
2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Appellate Authority, Head
Office having its office at Rajendra Palace, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O.
Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi - 834001 (Jharkhand).
3. The General Manager and Competent Authority, Jharkhand Gramin Bank
Head Office having its office at Rajendra Palace, 5, Main Road, Ranchi,
P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand).
4. The Regional Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Singhbhum Region
having its office at Amlatola, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar,
District West Singhbhum-833201 (Jharkhand).
5. The Branch Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Kiriburu Branch under
Singhbhum Region, P.O. Kiriburu, P.S. Kiriburu, District West
Singhbhum, Chaibasa, Jharkhand - 833205 (Jharkhand).
.. ... Respondents/Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate
Page 1 of 17 L.P.A. No. 410 of 2023
Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate
Mrs. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate
.....
C.A.V. on 14th May, 2024 Pronounced on 12/06/2024
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
I.A. No.10216 of 2023:
1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of
1460 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.
2. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed.
3. Heard the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has taken the ground for
condonation of delay that after the judgment having been passed in
W.P.(S) No. 2488 of 2016 vide order dated 25.07.2017, letters patent
appeal being L.P.A. No. 465 of 2017 was filed after obtaining certified
copy. The said L.P.A. was disposed of on 25.07.2018 as being not
pressed at this stage in order to prefer review application before the
learned Single Judge.
Thereafter, after obtaining the certified copies of the order dated
25.07.2018 in L.P.A. No. 465 of 2017, the appellant/writ petitioner
preferred Civil Review No. 73 of 2018 which was dismissed vide order
dated 12.05.2023 and thereafter, the instant appeal has been preferred
in which the delay of 1460 days has been pointed out, as such, prayer
has been made that the delay occurred in the filing the instant appeal
may be condoned.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the
statements made in this application, we are of the view that the
appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this
appeal within time.
6. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of
1460 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.
L.P.A. No. 410 of 2023:
Prayer:
7. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed
against the order/judgment dated 25.07.2017 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2488 of 2016, whereby and whereunder,
the order of punishment dated 23.11.2015 passed by the General
Manager and Competent Authority as well as the appellate order dated
12.02.2016 passed by the Chairman and Appellate Authority has been
refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.
Facts:
8. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition
which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:
The petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent bank
(erstwhile Sighbhum Kshetriya Gramin Bank now at present known as
Jharkhand Gramin Bank) to the post of Branch Manager Scale I Officer
on 08.10.1982 whose service was confirmed on 10.01.1985 and he was
subsequently promoted to scale II Officer (MMG-II) with effect from
25.08.2005 and worked as Branch Managers in different branches.
The petitioner, while working, was served with a Memo calling
for explanation for the irregularities in sanctioning/ Disbursement of
the loans & Advances at Kiriburu Branch during his tenure as Branch
Manager by the Respondent No.4 vide his Ref. No. RO/IR/2013-
14/001 dated 24.10.2013.
The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 07.12.2013
to the Respondent No. 4 thereby denying all allegations with reasoning
mentioned therein.
Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 decided to institute disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner for major penalty alleged to have
been committed by him, accordingly, the petitioner was intimated and
served with Charge Sheet vide Ref. No. JGB: HO: IR: 2014-15: 107
dated 10.09.2014 enclosing thereby articles of charge and statements of
allegations, list of documents and list of witnesses.
The Respondent No. 3 has also served to the petitioner the copies
of his Ref.No. JGB: HO: IR: 2014-15 109 & 110 dated 10.09.2014
thereby appointing Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh Senior Manager
Bhilaipahari Branch as Inquiring Authority (I.A.) to enquire into the
charges and Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey Manager Ghorabanda Branch as
Presenting Officer (P.O.) to present the case in support of the Charges
framed against petitioner.
The Respondent: No. 4 through his Ref. No. RO: IR: 2014-15:
008 dated 16.09.2014 has handed over above mentioned charge sheet
as well as copies of appointments of I.A. & P.O. issued by the
Respondent No. 3 to the petitioner on the same day. That it is stated
that subsequently the departmental proceedings were held from
01.12.2014 and concluded on 14.07.2015.
It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner
participated in the said enquiry through his defence representative but
some important documents being demanded by the petitioner for his
defence were neither provided on the pretext that the same were
privileged documents and some of them are not in the custody of the
presenting officer.
It is also the case of the petitioner that altogether depositions of 2
Management witnesses (M.W.-1 & M.W.-2) were recorded and 74
Managements Exhibits were brought on record for their examination as
(M.Exts) on behalf of the Management during the departmental
proceedings and only 70 defence documents as (D.Exts) were brought
on record by the C.S.O for his defence as some more important relevant
documents were not supplied to him.
The Inquiring Authority has submitted findings of departmental
enquiry before the General Manager and Competent Authority thereby
proving all charges conclusively without considering the oral as well as
documentary evidences adduced by the petitioner and the materials on
records.
Thereafter, as per instructions of the General Manager and
Competent Authority the petitioner submitted his detailed reply/
representation on the enquiry findings on 12.10 2015.
Thereafter, vide order dated 23.11.2015, the penalty order was
passed awarding the major penalty of ""Downgrade of Scale from
MMG-II to JMG-I and fitment of pay at the initial of JMG-I i.e. Rs.
23,700/-till superannuation with cumulative effect" under Regulation
No.39.1(b) of Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees)
Service Regulations, 2010 to the petitioner
The petitioner preferred an appeal against this Penalty Order
dated 23.11.2015 to the Chairman- Cum-Appellate Authority
(Respondent No.2) on 04.01.2016 but the same was rejected vide order
dated 12.02.2016 and penalty order as inflicted upon the writ petitioner
was affirmed vide order dated 23.11.2015.
Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred a writ petition
being W.P.(S) No. 2488 of 2016, wherein, the appellant-writ petitioner
has taken the ground of providing no sufficient and adequate
opportunity of hearing particularly, the inspection report has not been
supplied to the writ petitioner.
The writ court has called upon the respondent-Bank and after
taking into consideration the ground taken as also the nature of
allegation and further the appellant-writ petitioner has not made any
objection in the conduct of the enquiry report, has dismissed the writ
petition, against which the present appeal has been preferred.
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant:
9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has taken the
following grounds in assailing the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge as also the administrative authorities:
(i) The ground has been taken that the appellant-writ petitioner has
all along participated in the enquiry but even then some
important documents were not supplied to the writ petitioner to
put forth his defence, reason best known to the respondent-
authorities as also the inspection report has not been provided to
the writ petitioner.
(ii) The ground has also been taken that the request of the writ
petitioner to examine the relevant borrowers in the enquiry so
that he can prove his innocence regarding the allegation/charge
of non-existence of some borrowers was also rejected on the
ground that the outsiders are not allowed in the departmental
enquiry.
(iii) The ground has also been taken that adequate and sufficient
opportunity has not been provided to the writ petitioner to put
forth his defence.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of the aforesaid, has
submitted that the said aspect of the matter has also not been considered
by the learned Single Judge, as such, the impugned order needs to be
interfered with.
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents:
11. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents has taken the following grounds in defending the
impugned order:
(i) It is incorrect on the part of the writ petitioner to take the ground
that adequate and sufficient opportunity has not been granted
rather it has been submitted by referring to the stand taken in the
counter affidavit wherein in the specific question put to the
appellant that "do you wish to present any more defence exhibits
or present any DWs?"
The answer of the writ petitioner was in negative.
Learned senior counsel, based upon the aforesaid stand of
the appellant, has submitted that once the writ petitioner denied
to have further opportunity to produce any document or to
examine witnesses, he now cannot be allowed to agitate the same
that he has not been provided adequate and sufficient opportunity
in defending the charge.
(ii) Learned senior counsel responding to the ground taken by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the inspection report has
not been provided to the appellant, submission has been made
that no such requisition has ever been made. Further, it is the
admitted case of the appellant as would be evident from the
defence reply that there is irregularity in some of the loan
account which itself suggest that he is negligent in discharge of is
official duty.
(iii) The ground, therefore, has been taken that even accepting that
the inspection report has not been given, it cannot be said to
cause any prejudice reason being that he himself has admitted the
fact of commission of irregularity.
(iv) Learned senior counsel has further submitted by referring to the
nature of allegation wherein the loan has been disbursed even to
the non-existing shops and the party concerned without any
collateral security. The respondent-bank has taken into
consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and after finding
the charge to be proved, the order of reversion has been passed
from MMG-II to JMG-I which is by taking lenient view.
12. Learned senior counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted
that the impugned order, therefore, suffers from no error.
Analysis:
13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the
finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
14. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the
enquiry report as also the decision of the disciplinary authority and the
finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, deems it fit and proper to
refer the scope of judicial review in exercising the power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard be made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. P.
Gunasekaran, AIR 2015 SC 545, in particular to paragraph 13, laying
down following guidelines which are self-explanatory:
"13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to
note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the
disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before
the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. 1 was accepted by
the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High
Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The
High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the
evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that
behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair
conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence
and merits of the case;
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and
capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at
such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the
admissible and material evidence;
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
shall not:
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same
has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can
be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its
conscience."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Management of State Bank of India
vs. Smita Sharad Deshmukh and Anr., (2017) 4 SCC 75, has laid
down that it is equally settled position of law that the High Court sitting
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can certainly interfere
with the quantum of punishment, if it is found disproportionate to the
gravity of offence.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Industrial Security Force
and Ors. vs. Abrar Ali, AIR (2017) SC 200, has laid down following
guidelines at paragraph 8 for interference by the High Court in the
matter of punishment imposed on conclusion of the departmental
proceeding, which is quoted herein below:
"8. Contrary to findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the High
Court accepted the version of the Respondent that he fell ill and
was being treated by a local doctor without assigning any reasons.
It was held by the Disciplinary Authority that the Unit had better
medical facilities which could have been availed by the Respondent
if he was really suffering from illness. It was further held that the
delinquent did not produce any evidence of treatment by a local
doctor. The High Court should not have entered into the arena of
facts which tantamounts to reappreciation of evidence. It is settled
law that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya,
reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 : (AIR 2011 SC 1931, Para 6), this
Court held as follows:
"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an
appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic
inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible
on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and
properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the
question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of
the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings
in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere
with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except
where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are
clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether
a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such
conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will
however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if
principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been
violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala
fide or based on extraneous considerations.
In Union of India and Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2
SCC 610 this Court held as follows:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note
that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the
disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the
inquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the
disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court
is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High
Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the
evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the inquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the inquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that
behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting
the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair
conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and
merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and
capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at
such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the
admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
shall not:
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the inquiry, in case the same has
been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be
based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its
conscience."
15. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the law has been laid
down that in which circumstances, the power of judicial review is to be
exercised and in which circumstances, it is not to be exercised.
16. This Court is now proceeding to examine the factual aspect based upon
the nature of charge as also the finding recorded by the enquiry officer
in order to assess as to whether the case of the appellant-writ petitioner
is coming under the fold of the power of judicial review to show
interference with the impugned order.
17. This Court, for the aforesaid purpose, needs to refer herein the charges
as per the memorandum of charge which reads as under:
"ARTICLES OF CHARGE
Acts of misconduct as herein mentioned are alleged to have been
committed by you, during your tenure as Branch Manager of Bank's
Kiriburu branch from 15.01.2008 to 01.12.2011.
ARTICLE-I
In gross violation of Bank's lending norms, systems and procedures,
you recklessly sanctioned and disbursed loan in 60 accounts
aggregating Rs.104,14 lacs inasmuch as:-
(1) In 36 accounts, shop/business is non-existent and in 8
accounts, borrowers are not traceable at their given address.
(2) In 60 accounts, credit needs of borrowers were not properly
assessed, as no pre-sanction inspection report is available.
(3) In 60 accounts, CBD-23 of borrowers and guarantors is not
supported by documents for a meaningful assessment of their
worth.
(4) In 4 account, you exceeded your delegated authority and the
Competent Authority was not informed.
(5) In 27 accounts, undue financing was extended to more than
one member of the same family for same trade/business unit/shop.
(6) In 60 accounts, security documents obtained are defective.
(7) In 2 accounts, withdrawal of loan amount by a 3rd party
unrelated to the borrowers and without the knowledge of the
borrowers, was allowed.
(8) In 60 accounts, proper end use of funds was not ensured, as no
post-sanction inspection report is available and in 60 accounts, no
bills/receipts are available to show control over loan disbursement.
(9) In 50 accounts, disbursement was made either by way of cash
or by crediting SB A/cs of borrowers instead of paying directing to
the suppliers.
(10) In 60 accounts, insurance of assets is not available.
(11) In 60 accounts, advance sanctioned was not reported to the
Controlling Authority in the monthly statement.
Out of the total 60 accounts sanctioned and disbursed in the
above manner, 49 accounts have turned NPA involving Rs.46.77. The
Bank is likely suffer financial loss of Rs.46.77 lacs in these accounts,
because of your lapses.
2) In the aforesaid manner, you failed to discharge your duties
diligently and with honesty and faithfulness, which if proved, would
amount to breach of Regulation No.20 of Jharkhand Gramin Bank
(Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010."
18. The petitioner has been called upon to participate in the enquiry and
accordingly, he has participated in the enquiry. The delinquent
employee has furnished detailed reply denying the allegation, but
however, in one of the charges, he has admitted to have committed
mistake.
19. We, on going through the entire enquiry report have found that the
management witnesses have deposed in support of the charge which
have also been cross-examined by the appellant.
20. This Court needs to refer herein the extract of the order inflicting
punishment passed by the disciplinary authority based upon the finding
recorded by the enquiry officer:
"6) In the circumstances, the undersigned rejects all the contentions
raised by you in your representations on inquiry findings. The inquiry
finding has been arrived at on the basis of proper evaluation of
evidences on record. It is logical and consistent. The defense
contentions have been properly discussed before arriving at
conclusion. Hence, the undersigned hereby accepts the inquiry report
in totality.
7) The charges proved against you are quite serious in nature such as
extending loans to non-existent businesses, sanctioning the loans
without assessing credit needs, improper CBD-23, financing the loan
to more than one members of the family for the same business,
obtaining defective documents and assets purchased from bank's loan
kept uninsured which violates Bank's lending norms. You made direct
disbursement of the loans to the Borrowers and failed to ensure end
use of funds giving scope of diversion of Bank's fund. You allowed 3rd
party to withdraw loan amount from the account of the Borrower
without the knowledge of the Borrowers.
Looking to this aspect, the Competent Authority is convinced that the
major penalty of "Downgrade of your Grade from MMG-II to JMG-I
and fitment of your pay at the initial of JMG-I i.e. Rs.23,700/- till you
superannuation with cumulative effect" shall meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the undersigned hereby passes the following order.
Order
Shri Bharirath Keshri be and is hereby awarded the major
penalty of "Downgrade of Scale from MMG-II to JMG-I and fitment
of pay at the initial of JMG-I i.e. Rs.23,700/- till superannuation with
cumulative effect" under Regulation No.39.1(b) of Jharkhand Gramin
Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 for the acts
of misconduct as enumerated in the charge sheet issued under the
cover of memo Ref. No.JGB:HO:IR:2014-15:107 dated 10.09.2014
and held as proved in the disciplinary enquiry.
8) This order shall take immediate effect.
9) If you so desire, you may prefer an appeal against this order within
45 days of the date of receipt of this order. The appeal shall be
addressed to the Chairmn, Jharkhand Gramin Bank and the Appellate
Authority in your case.
10) Receipt of the order shall be acknowledged on the copies thereof."
21. Learned senior counsel for the respondent in response to the argument
advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that no
adequate and sufficient opportunity has been granted, has referred the
minutes of the enquiry proceeding dated 14.07.2015 as referred in the
counter affidavit appended to the writ petition at paragraph-19 wherein
on query made to the appellant he has submitted that he is not to
produce any document or to cross-examine the witnesses. For ready
reference, relevant part of paragraph-19 of the counter affidavit is being
referred as under:
"19. ...
So far as the Defense witness is concern, the petitioner and his
representatives neither demanded nor presented any defense witness
in whole departmental proceeding. But in fact it is clear from the
Minutes of the Enquiry Proceeding dated 14.07.2015 that when it was
asked from DR: do you wish to present any more defence exhibits or
present any DWs?" the answer of the same was "Negative"."
22. The fact about providing no adequate and sufficient opportunity is not
found placed in any of the application said to be made before the
enquiry officer.
23. The question herein is that when no such plea was taken before the
enquiry officer by making requisition to that effect then how can the
appellant be allowed to cast aspersion upon the conduct of the fair
enquiry.
The enquiry will be said to be unfair if even on the basis of the
requisition to produce document or call upon the witnesses, if has not
been acceded to. But there is no reference to that effect and even that is
not the case of the appellant rather the submission orally has been made
that the inspection report has not been submitted.
24. Even accepting that the inspection report has not been provided but
question is that who has prevented the appellant to take this ground of
not providing the inspection report by making requisition before the
enquiry officer.
25. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the ground which is being
taken of not providing inspection report cannot be said to be just and
proper to show interference with the impugned order.
26. Further, in the enquiry report, the enquiry officer has taken into
consideration the official discharge of duty of the appellant-writ
petitioner in which the loan has been sanctioned against the shop
having no existence and in some of the cases, there is no collateral
security said to be ensured or even the guarantor having not properly
been checked.
27. It also requires to refer herein the judicial pronouncement of the
Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that
the employees working in the financial institutions like the bank are
supposed to perform their duty with utmost sincerity and integrity and
they are to be treated differently to the other civil servants on the
ground that they are dealing with the public money.
28. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in Chairman
and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Vs. P.C.
Kakkar, [(2003) 4 SCC 364, which reads as hereunder:
"14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty
and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the
customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all
possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his
duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do
nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and
discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every
officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari
Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1194] it is no defence
available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when
the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an
organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its
officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere.
Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is
a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in
nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been
kept in view by the High Court."
29. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in State
Bank of India & Ors Vs. S.N. Goyal [(2008) 8 SCC 92] has been
pleased to hold at paragraph 41 as under:
"41. At the relevant point of time the respondent was functioning as
a Branch Manager. A bank survives on the trust of its clientele and
constituents. The position of the Manager of a bank is a matter of
great trust. The employees of the bank in particular the Manager are
expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the
funds of the customers/borrowers of the bank. Any misappropriation,
even temporary, of the funds of the bank or its customers/borrowers
constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. When a
borrower makes any payment towards a loan, the Manager of the
bank receiving such amount is required to credit it immediately to
the borrower's account. If the matter is to be viewed lightly or
leniently it will encourage other bank employees to indulge in such
activities thereby undermining the entire banking system. The
request for reducing the punishment is misconceived and rejected."
30. Further, in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. M Duraisamy
reported in (2022) 7 SCC 475 wherein at paragraph the Hon'ble Apex
Court has been pleased to hold that there cannot be any leniency and
undue sympathy in the matter of punishment awarded to the bankers.
For ready reference paragraph 15 and 17 of the judgment reads as
under:
"15. Merely because the respondent employee had worked for 39
years and in those years, there was no punishment imposed and/or
that he voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount along with penal
interest and therefore there was no loss to the
Government/Department cannot be a ground to interfere with the
order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and
substitute the same from removal to that of compulsory retirement.
Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court have, in fact, considered the
nature and gravity of the misconduct committed by the delinquent
officer. Therefore, both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had
exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
17. Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was
holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee
had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss
caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view
and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee. What
about the loss caused to the department by way of goodwill, name and
fame of the department and its reliability amongst the public? By such
a misconduct/act on the part of the delinquent officer, the reputation
of the department had been tarnished. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, both, the Tribunal as well as the High
Court have exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the
quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and to
substitute the same to that of compulsory retirement."
31. It is, thus, evident that the service rendered by the civilian and the
bankers are on two different pedestals as the bankers are to discharge
their duty with utmost sincerity. A bank survives on the trust of its
clientele and constituents. The position of the Manager of a bank is a
matter of great trust. The employees of the bank in particular the
Manager are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in
handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the bank. Any
misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds of the bank or its
customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe
punishment.
Conclusion:
32. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion and relying upon the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India &
Ors Vs. S.N. Goyal (supra) and based upon the factual aspect, is of the
view that the case of the appellant-writ petitioner is not coming under
the fold of the case where the interference is required to be shown.
33. Further, since the petitioner was working in bank and as has been held
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar (supra)
that a bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty
and integrity as he deals with the money of the depositors and the
customers, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by
the administrative authorities suffers from no error.
34. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the facts in entirety
and the scope of judicial review in exercise of power conferred under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, according to our considered
view, is correct in not interfering with the orders passed by the
administrative authorities as impugned.
35. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect and taking into
consideration the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is of the
view that the learned Single Judge has considered the entire aspect of
the matter based upon the legal proposition as referred hereinabove and
hence, the impugned order needs no interference.
36. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed.
37. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree,
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Saurabh / A.F.R.
