Madras High Court
Sakthivel vs The General Manager/Appellate ... on 8 March, 2022
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.13779 of 2017
Sakthivel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The General Manager/Appellate Authority,
Industrial Relation Division,
Syndicate Bank,
Head Office, Manipal,
Karnataka – 576 104.
2.The Assistant General Manager,
Industrial Relation Division,
Syndicate Bank,
Head Office, Manipal,
Karnataka – 576 104.
3.The Manager,
HR/IR, NIRC,
Syndicate Bank,
Regional Office, 1st Floor,
Leelavathy Building,
Armenian Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
4.The Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Regional Office,
Madurai. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide
his proceedings vide Ref.No.064/PD:IRD/DA-6 dated 12.02.2016 and the
consequential impugned order issued by the first respondent vide proceedings
No.112/PD:IRD/DA-7 dated 26.12.2016, confirming the penalty awarded by
the Disciplinary Authority, “REMOVED FROM THE SERVICE OF THE
BANK WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT WITHOUT DISQUALIFICATION FOR
FUTURE EMPLOYMENT” and quash the same as illegal, unlawful,
unconstitutional and arbitrary and consequently direct the first and second
respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and all the
consequential benefits without break in seniority.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.Pala Ramasamy
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the punishment order
dated 12.02.2016 and the consequential order dated 26.12.2016 wherein the
petitioner was imposed with punishment of removing from service of the Bank
with immediate effect without disqualification for future employment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
as a Probationary Officer in the respondent Bank on 06.08.2012 in Coimbatore.
He was transferred to Kuzhithurai branch from 05.11.2012 to 08.03.2014.
From 10.03.2014 onwards, he was working in Regional Office, Madurai. The
petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.09.2014 for the alleged act of
misconduct while he was working in the fourth respondent office. A memo
dated 27.02.2015 was issued and the preliminary enquiry was conducted on
03.06.2015 wherein the petitioner denied all charges. Then the regular enquiry
was conducted on 07.07.2015 and 08.07.2015. The petitioner demanded the
copy of the report of the investigating officer and the same was denied. The
alleged imputations of misconduct are that the petitioner was opening the
Terms Deposit Accounts with back dated value date. The petitioner contended
that the he opened such accounts for the purpose of acquiring knowledge about
the opening under Code No.401, 405, 406 etc., on experiment basis and not
with an intention of making any unlawful gain. The further contention of the
petitioner is no interest was earned or gained by him and there was no loss
caused to the Bank and no amount was withdrawn towards interest on the back
dated value date term deposits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
3. The next allegation against the petitioner is he has opened Synd
Samanya Savings Bank Account in his name without any necessity. The
allegation against the petitioner is that he is already having an account in the
respondent Bank and there is no necessity to open the special account which is
meant for disadvantages section of the Society. The claim of the petitioner is
that there is no bar to open the said Synd Samanya Savings Bank Account.
4. The next allegation against the petitioner is he has opened
agricultural jewel loan account No.6185.825.44852 in the name of Smt.
Velammal without proof of agricultural land like the land records, land revenue
receipts, transfer deed or land possession certificate. The contention of the
petitioner is the said Velammal was a cultivating tenant under oral lease by way
of an unregistered authorization letter by the land owner and the same was
produced to the Bank.
5. The next charge is that the petitioner has given his personal
password as a Bank employee to another employee which is against the Bank
rules. The contention of the petitioner is since there was less number of staffs,
when the other staff is not available, it became necessary to share the password
to complete the day-to-day transaction before locking the premises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
6. The Management has marked the exhibits 1 to 106. The
contention of the petitioner is that the Management has not produced the
investigation report. The management did not allow to cross examination with
regard to Management exhibit 22. After the enquiry, the impugned order has
been passed removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an
appeal on 27.04.2016 and the same was confirmed by vide proceedings dated
26.12.2016. By challenging both the orders, the present Writ Petition has been
filed.
7. The respondents have filed a detailed counter stating that while
the petitioner was working as Probationary Assistant Manager during the period
between 05.11.2012 and 08.03.2014, the petitioner had opened the deposits in
the name of his mother Mrs. Velammal by back dating the deposits and routing
the funds through parking GL account so as to derive undue benefit of
additional interest at the cost of the Bank. The petitioner has also sanctioned
Agricultural Jewel Loan of Rs.1,80,000/- to his mother without producing
proof of possession of land. The petitioner failed to maintain the secrecy of his
password and has also used the password of the Branch Head Office to
authorize fraudulent transactions without his knowledge. In the process, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
perpetuated the fraud on the Bank to derive undue pecuniary benefit which is
detrimental to the interest of the Bank. The counter also states the following
irregularities were observed on the part of the petitioner:
(i) The petitioner had opened term deposit accounts in the
name of his mother by giving back dates in a fraudulent manner
much earlier to the date of deposit which has no relevance and
derived pecuniary benefit by way of additional interest at the cost
of the Bank.
(ii) The petitioner had misused the password of the Branch
Manager Mr.Rajasekaran to put through the fraudulent
transactions of opening of deposit accounts with back dates.
(iii) The petitioner's account with ICICI Bank revealed
that, there were unusual and high value transactions which are
disproportionate to his known source of income.
(iv) The petitioner had knowingly opened “Synd Samanya”
account in his name against extant guidelines and used the
account for routing all the deposit transactions through this
account.
(v) The petitioner had unauthorizedly sanctioned
agricultural jewel loan of Rs.1,80,000/- to Mrs.Vellammal, his
mother, while the petitioner was on joining time from 18.03.2013
to 23.03.2013,without any proof of agricultural land holding and
when the regular Branch Manager was very much present in the
Branch. This shows that his act is not bonafide in nature.
(vi) The petitioner shared his password with other staff
members enabling them to make use of the same when he was not
on duty and availing joining time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
8. The contention of the petitioner is preliminary enquiry report
was not produced to the petitioner. The respondents relied on judgment
rendered in Krishna Chand Tandon Vs. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1589.
The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“The position of the investigation report or preliminary
enquiry report which formed the basis for initiation of
departmental enquiry, is somewhat different. The
documents of the nature is of an inter departmental
communication, primarily to the holding of enquiry and
have no importance unless the enquiry officer wants to rely
on them for his own conclusion. Therefore, the charge-
sheeted officer is not entitled to the copies of investigation
reports based on which the charges were framed, unless the
enquiry officer relied upon those reports.”
Since the petitioner's action is detrimental to the Bank, the petitioner was
imposed to the punishment by taking into consideration of his age. Hence the
respondents prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
9. Heard Mr.R.Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. The allegations against the petitioner is he has opened five
new Termed Deposit Accounts with back dated value date. The nature of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
said transaction was explained by the respondents. The petitioner would create
a fictious account as if fixed “term deposit” is there and interest has accrued.
The said interest would be credited in his account, the petitioner would enjoy
the interest. The contention of the petitioner is such transactions were dealt
with in a training session and the petitioner in order to experiment the same has
opened such accounts. The contention of the petitioner is he has opened such
accounts and the interest would be accruing after some one or two years, for
which the petitioner relied on the cross examination of one D.V.Subrahmanyam
is as follows:-
DQ4: Please refer to MEX 22 and inform the forum what has been
written over there regarding payment of interest apart from the
standard columns?
Ans: On MEX 22, apart from the standard columns, it has been
written as follows - “Value dated to 02.12.2013 with the calculation
of interest compounding factor only interest from 31.01.2014 to pre
closure date interest to be paid”
DQ5: Please refer to MEX 41 and inform the forum what has been
written over there regarding payment of interest apart from the
standard columns?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
Ans: On MEX 41, apart from the standard columns, the following is
also found written on the certificate - “only Interest from 03.02.2014
till closure to be paid. Excess interest to be recredited”.
DQ6: Please refer to MEX 57 and inform the forum what has been
written over there regarding payment of interest apart from the
standard columns?
Ans: On MEX 57, apart from the standard columns, the following is
also found written on the certificate - “only Interest from 08.02.2014
till closure to be paid. Excess to be recredited”.
DQ7: Please refer to MEX 66 and inform the forum what has been
written over there regarding payment of interest apart from the
standard columns?
Ans: On MEX 66, apart from the standard columns, the following is
also found written on the certificate - “Interest from 13.12.14 to
2.3.14 to be paid. Excess to be recredited to the IOD GL”.
11. By relying on this, the petitioner submitted that he has not
taken any interest at all, because in the said transaction, the compounding
interest would accrued from 30.01.2014 since there was no interest accrued as
on date, the petitioner has not taking any amount in the name of interest. Hence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
there was no loss to the Bank. However, the contention of the respondents is
that in two such transactions, the petitioner has earned Rs.9190/- and that is
loss to the Bank. On scrutinizing all the records it is seen that the enquiry
officer has observed that any ST 101 transaction journal reflecting transaction
on 11.03.2014 with sequence No.5100 and 5101 for Rs.4064.59/-being an
additional amount of interest paid on the term deposit opened wrongly by the
delinquent recovered by debiting in savings account number 220/46127 which
belongs to Mrs.Vellammal and credit to the suspense account after the enquiry
has taken place at the Branch. Likewise, the exhibits 12 and 13, the suspense
account of Rs.5125.72 was debited and that interest was credited to his account.
Therefore, the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion the petitioner has
received 9190/- as interest.
12. This Court is of the considered opinion that such transaction is
a serious malpractice. The contention of the petitioner is it is only for
experiment basis which was dealt a training camp and the same was carried out.
This Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner is allowed to
continue in service, the petitioner would further indulge in further experiment
and would be detrimental to the interest of the Bank. The contention of the
Bank is that the petitioner has opened Synd Samaniya account. But the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
petitioner contended that there is no guidelines barring a staff member from
opening such account. This contention was refused by the respondents stating
as per RBI directives, such accounts are to be opened for promoting financial
inclusion of the disadvantageous sections of the Society. When the petitioner
was having an account for the purpose of crediting his salary, there is no
necessity to open one more account that too under Synd Samania category, that
too without placing on records, relevant account opening forms and without
bringing the same to the notice of the Branch Manager. The petitioner is also
having an account in ICICI Bank which revealed there were unusual and high
value transactions which are disproportionate to his known source of income.
Moreover, the petitioner has unauthorizedly sanctioned Agricultural Jewel Loan
of Rs.1,80,000/- to his mother without any proper proof of agricultural land
holding. The petitioner has misused the password of Branch Manager and he
has shared his password to the other staff members enabling them to make use
of the same when he was not on duty.
13. By considering all these actions of the petitioner, this Court is
of the considered view that the punishment of removal from service of the Bank
with immediate effect without disqualification of future employment is
absolutely proportionate. The petitioner is 32 years old at the time of filing of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
the Writ Petition. Hence the Bank is taken consideration of his age and is
imposed without disqualification of future employment, the Bank has dealt with
the case compassionately. There is no infirmity in the order. Therefore, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence the Writ
Petition is dismissed.
14. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Nsr
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
To
1.The General Manager/Appellate Authority,
Industrial Relation Division,
Syndicate Bank,
Head Office,
Manipal, Karnataka – 576 104.
2.The Assistant General Manager,
Industrial Relation Division,
Syndicate Bank,
Head Office,
Manipal, Karnataka – 576 104.
3.The Manager,
HR/IR, NIRC,
Syndicate Bank,
Regional Office, 1st Floor,
Leelavathy Building,
Armenian Street, Chennai – 600 001.
4.The Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Regional Office, Madurai.
S.SRIMATHY, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
Nsr
W.P.(MD).No.17212 of 2017
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
