Widow of Thaneswar Boro v. State Bank of India

This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single J udge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against the order of dismissa l from service dated 6.10.2007. The appellant is the widow of Thaneswar Boro who was an employee of the State Bank of India and who died during pendency of his writ petition. Vide char ge sheet dated 8.11.2005, allegation of misconduct of misappropriation of Rs.8,1 0,000/- was made against the delinquent. It was alleged that the delinquent alte red the figures in the government bills and thereby withdrew more than authorize d. The amount was withdrawn by the delinquent in cash and lesser amount was depo sited in the treasury. Later, on the facts coming to light the delinquent deposi ted the balance amount to avoid consequences. He made a confession to this effec t vide the letter dated 13.6.2005. The enquiry officer vide the report dated 2.7 .2007 exonerated the delinquent but the disciplinary authority disagreed with th e enquiry report and after recording disagreement note and considering response of the delinquent, the order of dismissal from service was passed. The delinquen t approached this Court. He died during the pendency of the writ petition. The a ppellant being the widow of the deceased delinquent was substituted as a party. Learned Single Judge, after due consideration, did not find any error in the order of dismissal. It was held that the finding of misconduct was based on evidence on record and the disciplinary authority was justified in disagreeing with the report of the enquiry officer and in holding the charge to be proved. T he learned Single Judge held :- The crucial question for consideration of the enquiry officer was as to (cid:28)27. whether there was inflation of the bills by putting non-existent figures ahead of the actual figures. The charge was not that of erasing the actual figures so as to substitute them by other figures. As indicated above, the modus operandi towards inflating the bills was to put a figure ahead of the actual figures. As for instance, at serial No. 1 of the charge sheet the bill amount was Rs. 20,0 00/-, but the same was made Rs. 1,20,000.00 by putting the figure (cid:28)1 (cid:29) ahead of R s. 20,000.00.

28. When the above was the modus operandi, naturally the bills themselves di d not prima facie indicate the inflation of the amounts by any alteration in the actual figures. The enquiry officer also heavily placed reliance on the treasur y challans PEX-1(D) to PEX-11 (D) through which misappropriated amounts were r efunded with the remarks (cid:28)paid in excess through oversight (cid:29). However, while doin g so, it totally escaped the notice of the enquiry officer that as many as in 11 bills there were excess payment and on being caught, the petitioner refunded th e same through treasury challans with the said remark because he could not have stated in the treasury challans that the amounts were misappropriated by him by above modus operandi.

29. Another important aspect of the matter is that the enquiry officer while holding that the petitioner did not misappropriate the amounts surprisingly obs erved that (cid:28)in absence of any other papers/documents from Shri Boro, CSE admitti ng either the excess amount were drawn and misappropriated by him on the challan amounts were replaced by him once he had drawn and misappropriated as alleged i n the charge sheet, it could not be agreed without examining the Govt. Cashiers/ bearers of the bills who had actually received the bill amounts that Shri Boro, CSE, had tendered the challan amounts as viewed by Presenting Officer in his b rief basing only on the signature of Shri Boro, CSE in the challans and thereby he had misappropriated the amount once he had drawn by altering the figures/ am ounts only on the Govt. debit scrolls and cash payment registers after the bills were passed for the actual amounts and sent for payment by passing officers as alleged in the charge sheet when the paying cashier, Shri Boro, CSE had paid the bill amounts as passed by the Passing Officers as evident from the Govt. debit scrolls and cash payment registers. However, no Govt. cashiers/bearer of the bil ls were produced and examined before enquiry as evident from the enquiry proceed ings (cid:29). While observing as above, the enquiry officer did not even obliquely dea 30. l with the most important question as to why the signature of the petitioner did contain in the challans through which the misappropriated amounts were deposite d. It is in that view of the matter coupled with the cryptic reply of the petiti oner to the charge sheet, the disciplinary authority expressed its reasons for d isagreement by the above quoted order dated 16.03.2007 and asked the petitioner to submit his reply to the disagreement. As to what was contended by the petiti oner in his reply, has been noted above. Besides, when the proposed order of dis missal from service was passed and the petitioner was given opportunity to have his say in the matter, he submitted another cryptic reply without dealing with the reasons for disagreement. Not only that, after the final order of penalty a lso when the petitioner preferred the appeal, it did not contain the grounds tow ards challenging the order of penalty. Likewise, in the review petition against the appellate order also, the petitioner did not urge any grounds.

31. During the course of hearing, attention of the learned counsel for the p etitioner was drawn to Clause-v of Annexure-F letter dated 16.03.2007 conveying the points of disagreement to the petitioner in which serial No. 1 of the charge sheet was indicated. In the note of disagreement referring to the said bill, it was pointed out that it was evident from the copy of the bill that the amount passed by the petitioner for payment of Rs. 20,000/- was inflated to Rs. 1,20,00 0.00 by altering the figure in the Govt. debit scroll as well as in the payment register. In the said note of disagreement the confessional statement of the pet itioner dated 13.06.2005 was also mentioned. Thus, although it was submitted tha t the said confessional statement did not form part of the enquiry proceeding, b ut in fact, the same was referred to.

32. In the normal circumstances it was expected of a delinquent to deal with the same by cogent grounds, but the petitioner simply denied the said note of d isagreement. The learned counsel for the petitioner being confronted with the a bove could not furnish any satisfactory reply except strenuously arguing that on ce the petitioner was exonerated by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary author ity could not have disagreed with the said findings of the enquiry officer so a s to assign notes of disagreement. Law is well settled in this regard. The disciplinary authority engages t 33. he enquiry officer to enquire into the charges. On the basis of the findings rec orded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority may agree or disagree w ith the same. In case of disagreement the points relating to disagreement are r equired to be furnished to the delinquent giving him opportunity to have his say in respect of the same. In this connection, the decisions reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 ( Punjab National Bank & ors. vs. Kunj Behari Mishra) ; (2000) 1 SCC 416 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shashikant S. Patil & anr); (1999) 7 SCC 739 (Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharastra & anr.); AIR 2001 SC 2398 (State Bank of India & ors. vs. Arvind Kr. Sukla) may be referred to. (cid:29) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the letter of confession dated 13.6.2005 did not form part of the enquiry report and, therefore, the same could not be relied upon. Deposit of excess amount in the Government Treasury w as not proved to be by the delinquent and change of figure was innocuous by over sight. We are unable to accept the above submissions. As rightly held by learne d Single Judge, this Court does not sit in appeal over the finding of misconduct recorded by the disciplinary authority. Even if the letter of confession by the delinquent was not a part of the enquiry report, the fact that the appellant ha d confessed that he misappropriated the amount, could not have been ignored. The letter was taken into account by the disciplinary authority with due opportunit y to the appellant. Moreover, the change of figure was undisputed and whether th e plea of the delinquent that the same was innocuous and by oversight could be a ccepted or not cannot be gone into by this Court. View taken by the disciplinary authority, after appreciating the materials on record, has to be accepted unles s shown to be perverse. In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is no t that of a criminal trial. Finding has to be arrived at on the basis of probabi lities and is not liable to be interferred with by this Court, in absence of per versity. After due consideration, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge that the order of dismissal from service was not vitiated by perversity. The appeal is dismissed.