Judgment · High Court · 2012

The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-8 order dated 8.6.2001, by which he is d ismissed7 from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding. The petitioner is also aggrieved by Annexure-9 order dated 29.11.2002, by which, the departmental appeal preferred by him against the order of penalty was also dismissed. The cha rges against the petitioner as were leveled by Annexure-1 and 2 chargesheets dat ed 31.10.1997 and 26.5.1998 are very serious in nature. The charge was that of m aking fictitious ledger credit entries in SB Account No. 7401 standing jointly i n the name of the petitioner and his father. In the charges, the deposit of the fictitious entries and withdrawal thereof had been clearly indicated. By such fi ctitious entries huge amount had been credited in the said SB Account and therea fter the petitioner had withdrawn the amount thereby causing financial loss to t he respondent Bank.

#2. o the interest of the Bank involving the Bank in serious loss. (cid:29) The petitioner was charged of gross misconduct (cid:28)Doing acts prejudicial t

#3. The petitioner was given opportunity to submit his written explanation. However, he declined to submit the same. His prayer for changing the Enquiry Off icer vide representation dated 20.3.1999 was rejected by the disciplinary author ity by letter dated 6.4.1999. In the representation made by the petitioner prayi ng for change of the Enquiry Officer, only allegation made was that he would not be able to conduct the a free and fair enquiry. The disciplinary authority inti mated the petitioner that his request for changing of the Enquiry Officer was no t founded on any valid reason. It was also pointed out that the particular Enqui ry Officer was not a party to the incident nor he was a material witness of the management.

#4. In due course the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and examined the witnesses produced by the management. Certain documents were also exhibited. Ho wever, the petitioner did not examine any witness. He also did not desire to get himself examined on his own behalf.

#5. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquire report on 25.11.2000 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. In the detail ed enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer recorded about the presence of the Presen ting Officer, the petitioner and his defence representative. Certain documents w ere examined to identify the handwriting of the petitioner and on the basis of t he said documents, it as found that the entries made in the particular ledger we re in the own handwriting of the petitioner.

#6. As recorded in the enquiry report, the management exhibits (cid:28)ME/MEX (cid:29) had been exhibited after providing the petitioner not only inspection of the documen ts but also copies thereof. He was also provided with the copies of the document ary evidences including handwriting of the petitioner. There was also corroborat ive oral evidence. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct a 7. s alleged in the charges. It was observed that the petitioner instead of protect ing the bank’s interest took recourse to withdrawing the amount after making fal se entries in the ledger of which he was the keeper.

#8. On conclusion of the enquiry and submission of the report, the petitione r was provided with a copy of the same conveying the tentative decision to dismi ss him from service. However, the disciplinary authority asked the petitioner to submit his representation against the enquiry report before any final decision could be taken in the matter.

#9. Responding to the said notice, the petitioner made Annexure-7 representa tion dated 26.5.2001. In the said representation, the petitioner made certain va gue and indefinite allegations of not conducting the enquiry in a fair manner. H e also conveyed his feeling that he did not see any hope whatsoever in respect o f the proposed action of punishment to be imposed on him. However, he requested to provide the name and address of the appellate authority, to whom he had to se nd the departmental appeal.

#10. It will be appropriate to note at this stage the finding of the Enquiry Officer. In Point No. 08 of the enquiry report clearly recorded about the facili ties provided to the petitioner to defend his case which includes list of witnes ses, copies of documents, inspection of documents, opportunity for production of defence documents etc. Be it stated here that the petitioner was also represent ed by his defence representative.

#11. On the basis of the enquiry report and the representation submitted by t he petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 8.6.20 01 imposing punishment of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved, the petitione r made an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by Annexure-9 order dated 29.11. 2002.

#12. Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that si nce the petitioner was not provided with sufficient opportunity of being heard, the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is perverse based on which the dis ciplinary authority could not have imposed the punishment of dismissal from serv ice and the same is liable to be interfered with directing the respondent Bank t o impose lesser punishment.

#13. Countering the aforesaid argument, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the charge of misconduct of false deposit and with drawal of the amount after making fictitious entries having been established in the enquiry and there being no denial on the part of the petitioner, the miscond uct on the part of the petitioner cannot be taken lightly, more particularly, in a financial institution like Bank. As regards the submission of imposition of lesser penalty, he submits that the charge of misconduct against the petitioner being very serious in nature, the impugned decision arrived at by the disciplina ry authority towards imposition of punishment cannot be interfered with exercisi ng the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

#14. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the lea rned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the evidence on record. As not ed above, the charge against the petitioner is very serious. The same is withdra wal of huge amount by making fictitious entries in the ledger of which the petit ioner was the custodian. The particular SB Account was standing jointly in the n ame of the petitioner and his father. Taking advantage of the same, the petition er had made false entries in the ledger and thereafter withdrew huge amount from the said account. Such action on the part of the petitioner was unbecoming of a Bank employee. In the enquiry, the petitioner was given all reasonable opportunity to d 15. efend his case. However, as noted above, he declined to submit any written state ment against the charge. In the writ petition also the petitioner has not even o bliquely stated as to whether he was not responsible for the entries in question .

#16. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the proceeding cond ucted against the petitioner, which eventually resulted to the order of dismissa l from service and the appellate order affirming the same.

#17. The writ petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.