Jharkhand High Court
Kanda Mahali vs The Managing Director And Chief ... on 9 April, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:11002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2279 of 2021
-------
Kanda Mahali, son of late Sitaram Mahali, resident of H. No. 17 Parmath
Nagar School Road, P.O Tatanagar and P.S. Parsudih, District- East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... .. Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Union Bank of
India, Central Office, 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg, P.O and P.S Nariman
Point, Mumbai- 40001.
2. The Chief General Manager (HRM), Union Bank of India, Central Office,
239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg, P.O and P.S Nariman Point, Mumbai- 40001.
3. The General Manager (HRM) Union Bank of India, Central Office, 239
Vidhan Bhavan Marg, P.O and P.S Nariman Point, Mumbai- 40001.
4. The Field General Manager, Union Bank of India, Field General
Manager Office at 4th Floor, Royal Square Building, Argora Chawk, P.O
and P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand-834 002.
5. The Chief Manager (Disciplinary Authority) Field General Manager
Office at 4th Floor, , Royal Square Building, Argora Chawk, P.O and P.S.
Argora, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002. .....Respondents.
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the petitioner(s): Mr. R. Krishna, Advocate.
For the respondent(s): M/s P.A.S Pati and Akshay Kumar, Advocates.
------
13/09.04.2025: Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order passed by
the Appellate Authority whereby the petitioner's appeal was rejected vide
Letter No. AGM (ERD): AA:200:2021 dated 19.7.2021 (Annexure-15) with a
further prayer to quash the order passed by the Chief Manager vide Letter
No. FGMO/HR/2786/2020-21 dated 22.3.2021 (Annexure-13) whereby the
petitioner was dismissed from service. It has also been prayed to direct the
respondents to pass an order allowing reinstatement of the petitioner in
service and to give his entire retiral benefits.
3. The petitioner was appointed in Union Bank of India. While the
petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, he was suspended from service
on the allegation of certain serious act of omission or commission including
failure to perform his duties with utmost honesty and integrity, failure to take
all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of Bank and, acting
otherwise than in his best judgment in performance of his official duties.
Vide letter No. 4391 of 2004 dated 19.2.2004, the petitioner has received
2025:JHHC:11002
the memorandum from the Asst. General Manager, Bank of India, whereby
he was suspended from the service on the allegation of misconduct. The
detailed inquiry report was submitted vide letter No. 2138 dated 8.7.2006
against the charges. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his objection to the
Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 19.7.2016 stating therein that as per
the Bank Rule, no securities are required to be obtained in case of loan of
Rs.25,000/- and he took collateral securities in almost all the cases and
protected the interest of the Bank, but this fact is missing in the finding. The
Inquiry report was submitted against the petitioner in which charges
levelled against him were found proved. The Disciplinary Authority has
awarded punishment of reduction in his pay scale from MMGS-II to JMGS-
I i.e. the petitioner was demoted from higher post to the lower post.
4. An FIR being R.C. 06(E)/2002 (Kolkata) was also registered by
the Central Bureau of Investigation against the petitioner under Section
420, 468, 471 IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. The Spl. Judge, CBI/ACB Ranchi heard the matter
and concluded the trial on 15.9.2012 convicting this petitioner to undergo
R.I. of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo S.I. for one month under Sections 120(B)/420
IPC. He was further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. For two years
under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for two months. Against
the conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court of
Jharkhand, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 984 of 2012. The appeal was
admitted and his bail was granted on 10.10.2012. The said criminal appeal
is still pending for hearing. As the petitioner stood convicted for criminal
offence involving moral turpitude, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order
of major penalty, i.e., dismissal from service of the Bank. This order of
dismissal was challenged in appeal, which was upheld vide order dated
15.7.2021 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition).
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal is
absolutely non-speaking and no reasons for imposing the harshest
punishment has been disclosed. He submits that as per the Union Bank of
India Officers and Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations of 1976,
the Disciplinary Authority had to consider on the point of punishment, but,
2025:JHHC:11002
in the case of the petitioner, the same has not been done. He submits that
there were several other major punishments, but, why the punishment of
dismissal was passed is not known, which renders the order bad.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submits that
admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case, involving
immoral turpitude. He submits that the Banking Regulation Act, 1949
prohibits employment of a person, who, at any time, has been convicted by
a criminal Court of an offence involving moral turpitude, thus, the dismissal
of the petitioner is absolutely justified.
7. After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that it is an admitted
case that the petitioner is a convict as on date. His conviction is under the
Prevention of Corruption Act and the allegation has been proved in trial.
This offence involves moral turpitude. It is also admitted that the Criminal
Appeal of the petitioner is pending and his sentence merely has been
suspended. Mere suspending sentence and releasing the appellant
(petitioner) on bail does not mean that his conviction is interfered with or is
suspended. The petitioner remains a convict, and only his sentence
remains suspended. In this case, the petitioner is still a convict. Section 10
of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 prohibits employment of managing
agents and imposes restriction on certain forms of employment. As per the
provision of Section 10 (1)(b)(i) of the said Act, no banking Company shall
employ or continue the employment of any person - who is or has been
convicted by a Criminal Court for an offence involving moral turpitude.
Thus, as per the said provision of law, the respondent Bank cannot keep
the petitioner in employment. Thus, his dismissal order is absolutely
justified and is legal. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order by
which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.
8. The judicial pronouncement, which the petitioner has relied
upon, is not applicable in view of the facts of the case and in view of
specific provision of Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
9. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and position of law, I find
no merit in this writ application. The same is, thus, dismissed.
10. Since the criminal appeal of the petitioner is still pending,
petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, after disposal
of the appeal being Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.984 of 2012, keeping in view
2025:JHHC:11002
the judgment passed therein.
11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Anu/-Cp2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
