Laxman Singh Ahirwar vs The Satpuda Kshetriya Gramin Bank
2023 Latest Caselaw 284 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                     ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                   WRIT PETITION No. 13960 of 2008

BETWEEN:-
LAXMAN SINGH AHIRWAR S/O S/O M.S.AHIRWAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DISMISSED
FIELD OFFICER GANDHI ARD PURANI BASTI PIPARIYA
DISTT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY SINGH - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE SATPUDA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK HEAD
      OFFICE 800:19 SOUTH CIVIL LINE CHHINDARA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE   BOARD     OF   DIRECTORS SATPUDA
      KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE SOUTH
      CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

      T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the

following:
                                    ORDER

This petition is filed assailing the order of punishment dated 18/07/2001 Annexure P-2, vide which the respondent disciplinary authority imposed major punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner under Regulation 38 (1) (kha)(v) of the Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2000.

It is submitted that thereafter petitioner had made a mercy appeal, that too

has been dismissed vide order dated 13/12/2006 Annexure P-5.

It is submitted that petitioner had bonafidely kept certain amounts with himself and has admitted the fact of his guilt, therefore, instead of taking a harsh stand, respondent authority should have taken a lineant view.

Shri Sanjay Singh further submits, reading Annexure P-5, that though the decision Annexure P-5, is signed by the Chairman of the Satpuda Kshetriya Gramin Bank but there is a mention of the fact that while the said decision was taken, the Chairman was not present. On this basis, it is submitted that Chairman could not have signed the order for the proceedings to which he was not a party.

Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents in his submits that para 5.2 of the petition, is a clear admission of misappropriation of the property of the bank. Petitioner not only obtained certain amounts from the customers of the bank, issued them deposit slips and also made entries in their passbook whereas his contention is that this amount was taken by him on the basis of personal guarantee for personal use.

It is further submitted that as far as Annexure P-5, is concerned, the Chairman being the disciplinary authority has only communicated the decision of the Board. It is submitted that he was not present during the deliberations of the Board which took a call on a mercy appeal of the petitioner inasmuch as he being a disciplinary authority is the author of Annexure P-2.

Shri Ashish Shroti places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N. Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92, so also on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manoj H. Mishra Vs. Union of India and others (2013) 6 SCC 313 wherein it is held that if in a domestic/departmental enquiry, there is unequivocal admission of guilt made by

the delinquent, despite opportunity to deny the charges at final stage before enquiry officer, then it is held that delinquent cannot be permitted to resile from admission before enquiry officer in terms of the provisions contained in Section 17 and 115 of the Evidence Act.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that there is an admission on the part of the petitioner as is evident from para 5.2 of the writ petition.

Since, petitioner has admitted the aspect of guilt that he had kept the money of the customers to himself and, therefore, in view of the acceptance of the guilt, order of the disciplinary authority does not call for any interference specially when it is a matter touching the field of financial embezzlement.

In para 35 of the judgment in Manoj H. Mishra (supra), the Supreme Court has held that :-

"35. In view of the admissions made by the appellant, no evidence was adduced before the Enquiry Officer by either of the parties. Once the Enquiry Officer had declined to accept the conditional admissions made by the appellant, it was open to him to deny the charges. But he chose to make an unequivocal admission, instead of reiterating his earlier denial as recorded in preliminary hearing held on 26th December, 1994. The appellant cannot now be

permitted to resile from the admission made before the Enquiry Officer. The plea to re-open the enquiry has been rejected by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority. Thereafter, it was not even argued before the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel had confined the submission to the quantum of punishment. In LPA, the

Division Bench declined to reopen the issue. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 for reopening the entire issue at this stage. Such power is reserved to enable this Court to prevent grave miscarriage of justice. It is normally not exercised when the High Court has taken a view that is reasonably possible. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity in the decisions rendered by the Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court."

Similarly, in the case of S.N. Goyal (supra), in para 41 the Supreme Court has observed 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.

Thus, when case of the petitioner who was Branch Manager in Satpuda Kshetriya Gramin Bank is examined on the touchstone of these two judgments of the Supreme Court in S.N. Goyal (supra) and Manoj H. Mishra (supra), then there is no iota of doubt that petitioner is not entitled to any consideration as there is no illegality in the impugned orders calling for interference.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy

VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR 2023.01.07 17:12:27 +05'30'