High Court · 2003
Case Details
WA 67/2013 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.GOEL,THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN (A.K.Goel, CJ)
Decision
This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order of discharge from service with superannuation benefits and without disqualification from future employment. The appellant was employed as Assistant/Teller with the respondent Bank. He was given charge-sheet dated 14.07.2003 alleging defrauding the Bank by way of misap propriation in the draft account as follows :- (cid:28)It has been alleged that while officiating as teller at Silchar Branch, you hav e defrauded the Bank by way of misappropriation in draft account. You have depos ited less amount in draft account in respect of the undernoted drafts and have i ssued drafts for higher amount. Thereby you have perpetrated fraud in Bank’s dra fts account. By your such action you have misutilised the teller draft issue sys tem and exposed the bank to huge financial loss. It is further alleged that you have prepared all the undernoted draft vouchers a s your handwriting is appearing in all the vouchers. Please, therefore, submit your explanations within 15 days from the date of rece ipt of this explanation as to why appropriate disciplinary action will not be in itiated against you for the aforesaid gross misconduct committed by you. Defrauded amount Draft No. 01.11.2001 01.11.2001 01.11.2001 01.11.2001 03.11.2001 03.11.2001 03.11.2001 03.11.2001 03.11.2001 681706 681711 681702 681703 681776 681780 681779 681777 681796 In case we fail to receive any reply from you within a period of 15 days from th e receipt of this letter, it will be presumed that you have nothing to submit. Date of issue 4,000/- 8,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- 5,000/- Sd/- Lead District Manager (cid:29) The appellant denied the charge by stating that he had not defrauded the Bank bu t when discrepancies were pointed out, he recovered the amount from the purchase rs and deposited the same with the Bank. The reply is as follows :- (cid:28)In response to your Memo No. LB/NCH/23/290 dated the 12th September 2003, most humbly and respectfully I beg to submit my explanation as under : 1. That Sir, I never defrauded the Bank by way of misappropriation in Draft account as alleged rather I helped the Bank in recovering the lesser amount fro m the purchasers of the Drafts, when the Assistant General Manger, State Bank of India, Regional office, Silchar called me at his chamber on 16.04.2003 and poin ted out the discrepancies in I.O.R. and asked me to recover the difference amoun ts from the purchasers of Drafts. Accordingly, the amount recovered from the con cerned purchasers and deposited the amount of Rs. 35,000/- by means of Banker’s cheque No. 120027 dated 19.04.2003 for Rs. 31,000/- and Banker’s cheque No. &.. dated 21.04.2003 for Rs. 4000/-. That Sir, while going to office, I met a serious head injury due to a sc 2. ooter accident in 1991 and I have been under medical treatment till now. Recentl y a symptom develops. I cannot realise what happens to me for a fraction of mome nt. The attending Doctor has advised me that this is a temporary affect of medic ine which will subside automatically and also advised me to avoid mental stress and strain. During the material period, my youngest daughter was suffering from acute aliment leading to hospitalise her. Under the influence of medicine and m ental stress and strain due to hospitalisation of my youngest daughter, I cannot recollect exactly what happened during the material period. 3. In view of what has staged above, I have the honour to inform that since my joining I have been discharging my duties faithfully, diligently and honestl y with full satisfaction of my superiors under whom I worked. The alleged discre pancy might have happened due to the facts as stated above. However, I helped th e Bank to recover the difference amounts when pointed out to me. I, therefore, d eny the allegation of defrauding the Bank by way of misappropriation in draft ac count as levelled against me. Considering the facts stated above, I, therefore, request you to kindly absolve me from the alleged charge and reinstate me so tha t I can serve the Bank with full satisfaction of all. (cid:29) Enquiry was conducted and the charges were held to have been established and con sequently the impugned order was passed. However, in the criminal trial, on the same charge, the appellant was acquitted. The appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution allegi ng violation of principles of natural justice. This plea was duly considered by learned Single Judge and it was held as follows :- (cid:28)I have carefully gone through the decisions which are mainly on the principles of natural justice. As discussed above, the petitioner having not demonstrated a ny prejudice caused to him in conducting the departmental enquiry and he himself having admitted the fact stated in the charge sheet, in fact, admitted the guil t and for that matter the charge itself. That being the position, while apprecia ting the principles laid down in the said decisions, I do not find any ground to apply the said principle to the case of the petitioner. (cid:29) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that principles of natural justice h ave been violated as the appellant was not given the list of witnesses and docum ents along with the charge-sheet. It was also submitted that proceedings in depa rtmental enquiry should have been stayed during pendency of the criminal proceed ings as per Chapter 8 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002, Annexure -A. Learned counsel for the Bank supported the impugned order, pointing out that no prejudice was caused to the appellant as in the reply of the appellant it is cle ar that the Bank drafts of higher value were issued and on being pointed out the appellant made up the loss by making the necessary deposit. On these admitted f acts, disciplinary authority was entitled to draw inference of (cid:28)action of the ap pellant being prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or negligence causing loss to the respondent Bank (cid:29) which was covered by the definition of (cid:28)gross misconduc t (cid:29) as per para 8.3(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement. As regards the plea of stay of proceedings pending criminal trial, it is pointed out that the appellant never sought such stay and did not object to the proceed ings and therefore no prejudice was caused to him. This objection was also not r aised in the writ petition or during hearing before the learned Single Judge. Th e objection may, thus, be deemed to have been waived. On due consideration, we do not find any ground to interfere. It is patent that the appellant committed irregularities and his action was prejudicial to the int erest of the Bank, resulting in financial loss. Though the appellant made up the loss, the misconduct remained. View taken by the respondent authority, in these circumstances, could not be held to be perverse. On these admitted facts, any p rocedural irregularity in enquiry will not go to the root of the matter to inval idate the impugned order. The punishment is not shown to be grossly disproportio nate to the misconduct. The appellant having not sought stay of departmental pro ceedings at appropriate stage and having not raised this plea in the writ petiti on, he cannot be allowed to raise this question at this stage. For the above reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view take n by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.