High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1196/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. T. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learne d counsel, representing the respondent Bank. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 24.1.2003 (Annexu re-V), by which, pursuant to a departmental proceeding, the petitioner has been dismissed from service of the respondent Bank. Against the said order, the petit ioner had preferred the Annexure-VI appeal to the appellate authority, but the s ame has also been dismissed by Annexure-VIII order dated 28.8.2003. Thereafter t he petitioner filed the instant writ petition. The petitioner while was serving in the respondent Bank as Cash cum Gene 3. ral Clerk (CCG) at Sibsagar was served with Annexure-1 charge sheet dated 13.4.2 002 alleging financial irregularities. The charges that were leveled against the petitioner read as follows: (cid:28)Madam, It has been alleged against you as under: You were posted to out Titabor Branch of the Bank during the period from 13/01/1 997 to 03/12/2001 as cash-cum-General Clerk.
Legal Reasoning
During your such above tenure you were discharging your duties as Receiving Cash ier on 07/08/2000 in terms of Office Order No. 40(A) dated 07/08/2000 of Titabor Branch. On that date you received cash for Rs. 20,000/- under Pay-in-slip for c redit to S.B. A/c No. 1920 of Smt. Uma Kanti Bordoloi, besides other cash receip ts. Although you issued the counter foil of said Pay-in-slip duly signed by you for Rs. 20,000/-, but instead of accounting for the said cash receipt in Bank’s Books of Accounts you fraudulently pocketed the entire sum of Rs. 20,000/- for y our personal gain and purpose. With a view to conceal your such misappropriation of cash, you destroyed the related ledger sheet bearing No. 316680 of S.B. A/C No. 1920 where such cash deposit ought to have been reflected. Further you with ulterior motive unauthorisedly prepared one ledger sheet bearing No. 801647, und er your own handwriting of S.B. A/c No. 1920 with an imaginary figure of Rs. 1,1 7,296.00p as credit balance in the said S.B. Account instead of actual balance b eing Rs. 1,71,535-10p without indicating any date. In the said self made ledger sheet you failed to entry two genuine credit entries on 10/08/1999 and 30/12/199 9 involving an aggregate amount of Rs. 12,570-00p. Due to your such stated destr uction of original ledger sheet in S.B. A/c No. 1920 for the period from 10/08/1 998 to 30/12/1999 and subsequent manipulation, the said S.B. A/c stood with a cr edit balance of Rs. 2,05,596-00p as on 29/12/2000, in the ALP Machine which is l esser by Rs. 66,809-10p than the correct balance of Rs. 2,72,405-10p as per reco nstructed ledger sheet from Bank’s record as on that date. Thus, you exposed the Bank to suffer a financial loss to that extent being Bank’s liability to the de positor for that amount. During reconciliation of S.B. Ledger balance in November, 2001 at Titabor Branch , it revealed that you made fictitious credit entries on 09th and 10th December, 2000 for Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 9,000/- respectively in S.B. A/c No. 17642 of Mrs. Sabita Borah without preparing any vouchers. With a view to suppress your such misdeeds you made overwriting/disfigurement on dates of entries. Incidentally, 1 0th December, 2000 was a holiday being Sunday. In terms of allocation of duties under Office Order No. 65/2000 dated 09/10/2000 you were allocated duties in S.B . Ledger No. 1 to 31 but the S.B. account No. 17642 of Mrs. Sabita Borah was per taining to ledger No. 51. Hence you made unauthorized access into the ledger she et No. 801705 of S.B. A/c No. 17642 with a view to make those two fabricated ini tials of both the ledger keeper and passing officer, for your personal gain and purpose. It is further observed that Smti Sabita Borah was your tenant and you a re the introducer of her S.B. A/c No. 17642. Subsequently, conniving with you, t he account holder withdrew the whole amount causing financial loss to the Bank t o that extent. On 16/06/2001, again you made a false credit entry for Rs. 1,00,000/- in S.B. A/ c No. 1274 of Md. Anowar Hussain, impersonated the initial of both ledger keeper and the passing officer. With a view to suppress your misdeeds with malafide in tention for your personal gain and purpose you disfigured the date of entry by o verwriting. In terms of allocation of duties under Office Order No. 36/01 dated 21/04/2001 you were allotted to work in S.B. ledger No. 36 to 52 but with a view to make the said fake entry you unauthroisedly made access into the ledger shee t of S.B. A/c No. 1274 which pertains to S.B. Ledger No. 2. The account holder s ubsequently withdrew Rs. 1,00,000/- through different withdrawal slips in conniv ance with you, causing financial loss to the Bank to that extent. On 28/04/1998, there was a deposit of Rs. 500/- in S.B. A/c No. 10913 of Smt. Ru pali Dutta. You fraudulently with malafide intention inserted the figure ’10’ be fore Rs. 500/- in the credit side thereby inflaming the deposit as Rs. 10,500/-. You further inflated the ultimate credit balance in the said S.B. A/c No. 10913 from Rs. 1,025.25p to Rs. 11,025.25p by inserting the figure ’1’ before the cor rect balance of Rs. 1,025.25p. Thus, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was inflated by you i n the said account No. 10913 and the said amount was withdrawn by the Account ho lder on 13/08/1999 through withdrawal slip in connivance with you. The related l edger sheet is missing from the Branch but the pass book of the said S.B. A/c wa s recovered from your custody, which revealed the said misdeed committed by you. After reconstruction of the ledger sheet from the Books of Accounts and records of the branch, it transpires that on 13/08/1999, when the amount was withdrawn for Rs. 10,000/- the actual credit balance in the said S.B. A/c ought to have be en Rs. 1,143.25 which did not permit such withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, you have exposed the Bank to suffer financial loss to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. The acts as states above alleged to have been committed by you constitute gross misconduct in terms of para 19.5 (j) of Bipartite Settlement dated 19/10.1966 wh ich read as (cid:28)Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negl igence or negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss. You are therefore, directed to explain in writing within 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of this letter as to why appropriate disciplinary action shall n ot be taken against you. Should you fail to submit your explanation in writing a s stated above it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and in such a situation Bank will be at liberty to proceed further as per rules in forc e. (cid:29) 4. The petitioner denied the charges leveled against her and consequently, the disciplinary authority appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer by his report dated 4.10.2002 held that all the charges leveled against the petitioner stood established in the enquiry. Thereafter the discipl inary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was gro 5. ss violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry inas much as the petitioner was not provided with reasonable opportunity of being hea rd. In this connection referring to the enquiry proceeding, he submits that the petitioner having not been allowed to inspect the documents, there was prejudice in her defence. He also submits that the time prayed for by the petitioner ough t to have been granted instead of proceeding with the enquiry. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent Bank subm its that when the financial irregularity in the form of defalcation of the amoun t deposited with the Bank is an admitted position, in the name of procedural irr egularity in conducting the enquiry, the said position cannot be altered. He fur ther submits that the petitioner having been provided with all reasonable opport unity of being heard and she having not raised any prejudice in her defence, thi s Court exercising writ jurisdiction will not sit on appeal over the findings re corded by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority followed by the app ellate authority. 7. As to what were the charges against the petitioner has been noted above. Although the petitioner has not enclosed the copy of the written statement of t he defence, but on perusal of the enquiry report that was submitted on 4.10.2002 , her defence is discernible. In her defence, she did not point out anything in respect of the allegations made against her, but tried to attribute the miscondu ct to others so as to contend that she alone ought not have been picked up for t he charges. 8. The Enquiry Officer following the due procedure and discussing the entir e evidence on record found the petitioner guilty of all the charges. As regards the plea of the petitioner that she was not allowed to participate at the later stage of the enquiry, it is found that on 25.7.2002 an objection was raised by h er in respect of the inspection and verification of certain documents. The Enqui ry Officer was informed by the Presiding Officer that the delinquent petitioner had already verified the said documents on 15.7.2002 as prior intimation was giv en to her over telephone on 5.7.2002. Such inspection was also confirmed by her over telephone on 12.7.2002. As regards the claim for verification of the same v ery documents along with her defence representative, it is her own admission tha t for the purpose he could not be contacted. When a protest was wanted to be rai sed in that count, the Enquiry Officer requested the delinquent to lodge such pr otest in writing. However, the petitioner along with her defence representative prayed for 30 days time to think over the matter and left the proceeding. Therea fter they did not turn up for participation in the enquiry. By that time, the en quiry was completed. In a departmental proceeding, the principle relating to violation of nat 9. ural justice will have to be considered in the touchstone of causing any prejudi ce to the parties. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner herself exami ned the documents. However, she wanted further inspection along with her defence representative, which was also allowed, but her defence representative did not turn up. On perusal of the writ petition, nothing is discernible as to how the s aid situation had caused any prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. As recorded in the enquiry report on the basis of the material exhibit i 10. .e. ME-7, it was found as follows: (cid:28)The ME-7 which is the ledger sheet bearing No. 801647 of SB a/c 1920 of Smti Um akanti Bordoloi was fraudulently prepared by Smti Bonti Sonowal Saikia as confir med by MW-1 from the handwriting and initial put by Smti B.S. Saikia. The ME-7 s hows a opening balance of Rs. 1,17,296. The ledger sheet No. 661373 of SB a/c 19 20 (ME-6(2) shows a closing balance of Rs. 1,71,535.10p & it has been mentioned therein that the balance has been carried over to ledger sheet No. 316680. In ME -7 also the previous sheet No. has been mentioned as 316680 but the ledger sheet No. 316680 could not be found in Bank record as confirmed by MW-1. The reconsti tuted ledger sheet No. 116203 of SB a/c 1920 of Uma Kanti Bordoloi for the perio d 10/8/99 to 29/12/2000 (ME-8) shows a opening balance Rs. 1,71,535.10P and clos ing balance of Rs. 2,72,405.10P. The ME-7, the fraudulently prepared ledger shee t by Smti Bonti Sonowal Saikia of SB a/c 1920 of Smti Umakanti Bordoloi, shows a closing balance of Rs. 2,05,596/- MW-1 confirms that the closing balance of ME- 7 is finally short by Rs. 66,809.10P as compared with ME-8. Te Bank was thus exp osed to suffer a financial loss to that extent being Bank’s liability to the dep ositor. The charges against the CSE in respect of SB a/c 1920 of Smti Umakanti Bordoloi are therefore proved. (cid:29) 11. Referring to the charges in respect of SB Account No. 17642 standing in the name of Mrs. Sabita Bora, the Enquiry Officer has recorded the following fin ding. (cid:28)MW-2 confirmed that the above two entries of Rs. 5,500/- & 9000/- made by Smti Bonti Sonowal Saikia on 9/12/2000 and 10/12/2000 in SB a/c 17642 of Mrs. Sabita Borah had not been incorporated in Bank’s Books of Accounts. The captioned credit entry made by Smti Bonti Sonowal Saaikia are therefore fict itious entries. Subsequently Mrs. Sabita Borah in connivance with Smti Bonti Son owal Saikia withdrew the entire amount causing financial loss to the Bank. Smti Bonti Sonowal Saikia also in her letter dated 8/11/2001 has confessed that the above two fictitious credit entries in SB a/c 17642 amounting to Rs. 14,500/ - was made by her. The charges against Smti Bonti Sonowal Saikia pertaining to S B a/c 17642 of Mrs. Sabita Borah are therefore proved. (cid:29) 12. From the above what is seen is that the petitioner herself admitted by h er letter dated 8.11.2001 about the fictitious credit entries in the said SB Acc ount amounting to Rs. 14,500/. Similarly in respect of SB Account No. 1274 of Md. Anowar Hussain, the E 13. nquiry Officer has found the following (cid:28)From ME1(3) (office order No. 36/01 dated 21/4/01) it is observed that Smti Bon ti Sonowal Saikia was allocated SB ledgers 26 to 52 including staff and salary l edgers & SBA/c No. 2174 of Md. Anowar Hussain relates to ledger No. 2 as confirm ed by MW-2 from ME14(2) (ledger sheet No. 217355 of SB A/c No. 2174 of Anowar Hu ssain). MW-2 confirmed that there is a credit entry of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the sai d A/c on 16/6/2001 though the date is appearing overwritten & against the credit entry of Rs. 1,00,000/- both the initial of the ledger keeper & supervisor were made by Smti Bonti Sonowal Saikia. Smti Bonti Sonowal Saikia therefore made una uthorized access into the ledger sheet of SB A/c 1274. From ME 15(1) to ME 15(3) (Cash Receipt scroll dated 16/6/01), ME-16(SB Sub-cash book dated 16/6/2001 for SB ledger 1 to 13) & ME-17 (Transfer journal dated 16/6/01) MW-2 has confirmed that Rs. 1,00,000/- as appearing in the ledger sheet of SB 1274 on 16/6/01 has n ot been incorporated in the Branch accounting and as such the above entry of Rs. 1,00,000/- is a fake credit entry. From ME-14(2) & ME-28 (Computer generated le dger sheet of SB a/c 1274) MW-2 further confirmed that there were 11 (eleven wit hdrawals amounting Rs. 2,01,000/- in the said account of Md. Anowar Hussain duri ng the period 16/6/01 to 4/12/01. Hence the charges against Smti Bonti Sonowal S aikia pertaining to SB a/c 1274 are proved based on records and evidences. (cid:29) 14. ficer has recorded as follows: In respect of another account being SB Account No. 10913, the Enquiry Of (cid:28)In course of examination in which of MW-2, he confirmed that (Ref. Q No. 80 to Q No. 95) ME-24(1) to ME-24(3) is the certified photocopy of SB Pass Book No. 10 913 of Smti Rupali Dutta. He also confirmed that there is a credit entry of Rs. 10,500/- in ME-24(3) on 28/4/98 and whereas in ME-29 (the reconstructed ledger s heet of SB a/c 10913 as per bank’s records) the credit entry on 28/4/98 is Rs. 5 00/- only. The balance in ME-24(3) as on 28/4/98 is therefore excess by Rs. 10,0 00/- as against the balance in ME-29. MW-2 after going through ME-25 (token regi ster). ME-24(3) and ME-29 further confirmed that Smti Rupali Dutta withdrew Rs. 10,000/- on 13/8/99 from her SB a/c 10913 and as the actual balance as per bank’ s records did not permit such withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/-. So it shows a debit ba lance of Rs. 9847.25P. MW-2, further confirmed that he has reason to believe tha t Smti Rupali Dutta in connivance with CSE had withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- from her S B a/c 10913. The allegations against Smti Bonti Sonowal Saikia pertaining to SB a/c 10913 hav e thus been proved. (cid:29) 15. On the above basis the Enquiry Officer found that all the charges levele d against the petitioner stood established in the enquiry. Based on the said rep ort, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of dismissal from serv ice. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismisse d by the appellate authority. The petitioner being a Bank employee was to maintain absolute integrity 16. as she was dealing with public money. It is the matter of confidence, which is u tmost important in Banks transaction. If the Bank lost confidence on the petitio ner because of the serious allegations of financial irregularities and consequen tly dispensed with her service, no fault can be attributed to the Bank. 17. ccordingly, it is dismissed.
Decision
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and a