High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 7212/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as conveyed vide memorandum dated 14.5. 2005, by which, he has been discharged from the service of the respondent Bank w ith superannuation benefit as would be due otherwise at that stage and without d isqualification from future employment. The order so passed is pursuant to a departmental proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner in respect of the charge of defrauding the respondent Ban k while was serving as Clerk-cum-Typist in Dispatch Section of the respondent Ba nk, Local Head Office, Guwahati. Being aggrieved by the said order of discharge, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by order dated 25.5.2005. Thereafter he filed the instant writ petition. Altogether 5 charges had been leveled against the petitioner, which are reproduc ed below: (cid:28)Alleged fraud of Rs. 1,55,731.00 In despatch section at State Bank of India, Local Head Office. Chargesheet It is alleged that a fraud of Rs. 1,55,731.00 in despatch section at State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Guwahati has been perpetrated through courier servi ces viz. M/S Dolphin courier and North East Courier as well as though postal ser vices during the period 01.04.1997 to 15.07.1999 exposing the Bank to a financia l loss. Out of the above defrauded amount an amount of Rs. 89,919.00 has been pe rpetrated and misappropriated by you while you were working as Assistant (A/Cs) in dispatch section at State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Guwahati during t he period 01.04.1997 to 15.07.1999 as enumerated in the enclosed Annexure-I. 2. The following serious irregularities/ lapses were alleged to have been commit ted by you while discharging your duties as Assistant in the dispatch section: i) It is evident from the dispatch register that the entries therein were not ma de by you but were made by the representatives of courier agencies., The related registers were in your custody and you allowed the courier representatives to a ccess to the Bank’s records. You allowed the said courier representatives to wei gh the packets/envelopes and make entries in the register which is in contravent ion of Bank’s instruction. In the process and as a result of negligence and lack of devotion to duties on you part false/fictitious/additional entries were allo wed to be made as per details in Annexure-II. The loss to the Bank due to you ne gligence on this account amounted to Rs. 220.00
Legal Reasoning
ii) Whenever ordinary letters (Ols) were dispatched to the branch/office, a numb er of same Ols were entered twice i.e. once in the courier register and second t ime in the postage register as per details in Annexure-III. A number of branches have confirmed that they had received the Ols through couriers only. The excess stamps purportedly used in respect of the fictitious entries were withdrawn by you unauthorisedly and the proceeds thereof amounting to Rs. 84012.00 were misap propriated by you for your personal gain. iii) You had also entered the same Ols twice/thrice in the P&T Register for the same branch. The excess stamps purportedly used in such fictitious entries were withdrawn by you unauthorisedly and proceeds thereof misappropriated by you for your personal gain. The loss to the Bank on account of such fictitious entries a mounted to Rs. 5687.00 as per details in Annexure-IV. iv) You misrepresented to the concerned Head Assistant that the entries were pro perly made by you in the despatch register with a view to obtain his initials in order to shift the responsibilities on the Head Assistant. Accordingly the Head Assistant concerned initiated the registers on good faith although a number of entries were fictitious. This was done by you with a malafide intention for your personal gain. 3. By your acts, you failed to discharge your duties and thus violated the laid down instructions of the Bank and acted in a manner which is not only prejudicia l to the interest of the Bank but have also tarnished the image of the Bank in t he eyes of the public on account of adverse publicity in the Press media. Your a cts of gross negligence and neglect to duty have resulted in a loss of Rs. 89,91 9.00 to the Bank. 4. You are hereby directed to show cause as to why disciplinary action should no t be taken against you for your above acts which attract the provisions of parag raph 521 (4)(d)&(j) of the Sastry Award as retained by Desai Award applicable to you. (cid:29) In reply to the charges vide Annexure-II letter dated 21.11.2001, the petitioner made evasive statement, such as irregularities could not have been attributed t o him, as he did not wholly do the particular service etc. It was also stated th at in some occasions, in absence of the respective assistants, he had to perform the duties in the midst of his own work. It was further stated that amidst his busy schedule of work, the particular courier service agent might have been made the entries to save time and for speedy disposal of the list etc. In the writte n statement of defence, there was no specific denial of the charges. In the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was provided with all reasonable opp ortunities to defend his case. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of Charge No. II and V and C harge No. I and IV as partially proved. So far as the Charge No. III is concerne d, the same could not be established. The petitioner was provided with the copy of the enquiry report enabling him to make representation against the same, on receipt of which, the disciplinary auth ority considering the materials on record passed the impugned order dated 2.8.20 04. Thus, although the petitioner has been discharged from service, but he will be entitled to superannuation benefit as would be due otherwise at the particula r stage and the said discharge would also not entail disqualification from futur e employment. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 21.5.2005.
Legal Reasoning
On perusal of both the impugned orders, it is found that both the authorities pa ssed the same appreciating the evidence on record. It is in this context, Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel, representing the respondent Bank submits that this C ourt exercising writ jurisdiction will not sit on appeal over such findings so a s to record another finding. As regards the proportionality of the punishment, M r. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the disciplina ry authority dealt with the matter leniently while imposing the penalty of disch arge from service with superannuation benefit. In the writ petition, it has been stated that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in an illegal manner and the disciplinary authority also passed the impu gned order without any application of mind. It has also been stated that the app ellate authority also did not apply its mind towards dismissal of the appeal. It has also been stated that there being variation of the amounts relating to fina ncial transaction, the charges against the petitioner could not have been brough t and established in the enquiry. I have very carefully considered the grounds urged in the writ petition towards assailing the departmental proceeding and the orders of the disciplinary and app ellate authority. All the grounds are vague and non-specific coupled with the fa ct that no prejudice in defence of the petitioner has been pleaded. The petitioner having himself admitted that he was also the part of the works en trusted and the Enquiry officer having found on the basis of the evidence on rec ord that out of the five charges two charges have been established fully while t wo others partially, this court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 o f the Constitution of India cannot substitute another decision in lieu thereof. The penalty imposed cannot also be said to be disproportionate as the petitioner is entitled to superannuation benefits. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.