High Court
Case Details
WA 99/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K. GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NISHITENDU CHAUDHURY (A.K. Goel, C.J.) This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge uph olding the order of major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed against the a ppellant by the Respondent Bank under Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers & Emplo yees) Service Regulation, 2006. While in service of the Bank, a departmental proceeding was initiated ag ainst the appellant vide the charge-sheet dated 10.5.2010, on the following char ges:- (cid:28)Article of charges During the tenure of service as Officer of Dhemaji branch from 28.07.2008 to 26. 02.2010 you failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge your duty with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion an d diligence in as much as:- (1) On 06.03.2009, you credited an amount of Rs.12,172/- in your S.B. A/c.No. 11 3502 by debiting Conveyance Loan A/c.No.31 showing payment against Insurance Pre mium without any voucher. The above transactions were done in the computer by yo u by using your duel ID-KRD & DRK. Subsequently, you withdrew the money. Thus yo u abused your official power and defrauded Bank’s money to the extent of Rs. 12, 172/- (Rupees twelve thousand one hundred seventy two) for your personal gain an d purpose. (2) By adopting similar modus operandi as mentioned under column No.(1) above, you defrauded the Bank’s money to the extent of Rs. 40,253/- (Rupees forty thous and two hundred fifty three). The details are given here under:- SL.NO Credited to Date of Transaction Amount Involved User- ID Debited to 1 SBA/C 08.05.2009 No.113502 2 3 4 5 -do- 6 . 4 16.05.2009 -do- 08.05.2009 -do- 02.06.2009 -do- 02.05.2009 19.03.2009 -do- Rs.5000/- KRD DRK Conveyance A/C No.31 Rs.5000/- KRD DRK Rs.5000/- KRD DRK Rs.10000/- KRD DCM -do- -do- -do- Rs.7253/- KRD DRK Composite A/C No.24 Rs.8000/- KRD DRK Housing loan A/C No Total Rs.40253/-
Legal Reasoning
(3) On 10.02.2009, you fraudulently debited an amount of Rs.53000/- from COD A /C No.6 of Sri Digen Chandra Medak, Officer and credited the same to SB A/C No. 104488 of Sri Sadagar Baruah without any voucher. Subsequently, the account hold er withdrew the money. In order to make the payment of aforesaid anount, on 03 .03.2009, you unauthorizedly debited Rs.80000/- from your own Housing Loan A/C N o.4 and credited Rs.27000/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand) in your SB A/C No. 113 502 and rest Rs.53000/- in COD A/C No.6 of Sri Digen Chandra Medak. It reveals f rom the record that all transactions were done in computer by you using your du el ID (KRD & DRK). Thus, you misused your official power and taken out the Bank’ s money to the extant of Rs.80000/-(Rupees eighty thousand) for your personal ga in and purpose. (4) You intentionally made withdrawal beyond the sanctioned limit of Rs.35000 0/- in your own COD A/C No. 5 for several occasions. On 01.06.2009, withdrawable amount was Rs.7.92 (Rupees seven and ninety two paise) only in the account but you overdrew Rs.23000/-(Rupees twenty three thousand) on 3 (three) occasions of which Rs. 18000/- in cash on 2(two) occasions and Rs.5000/- in transfer payment. The above transactions were made and authorized by you using your own ID (KRD & DRK). Thus, you abused your official power by violating Bank’s lending norms and taken out Bank’s money to the extant of Rs.22992.08 (Rupees twenty two thous and nine hundred ninety two and paisa eight). By doing above modus operandi as mentioned in point No.(1) to (4), you defr auded Bank’s money amounting to Rs.155417.08 (Rupees one lakh fifty five thousan d four hundred seventeen and paise eight). On detection, you deposited Rs.132425 .00 to the Bank on different dates (Rs.50,000.00 on 30.06.2009 and Rs. 82,425.00 on 12.08.2009) and also regularized the COD A/c.No.5 by depositing the excess drawl amount i.e. Rs.22,992.08 (cid:29). On charges being established, the penalty of compulsory retirement was i mposed vide order dated 1.12.2011. The appellant approached this Court by submitting that though he did not challenge the findings in the departmental proceedings and he repaid the amount allegedly defrauded by him, other employees who had committed similar offences had been liberally dealt with by imposing lesser punishment. Reliance was placed on the following judgments of this Court :- 1. 2005 (4) GLT 442 (A.R.ATTAL (EX.H/C) Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors), 2. 2003 (3) GLT 588 ( Dimbeswar Saikia And Anr. Vs Union of India And Ors), and 3. 2001 (2) GLT 227 ( Probin Kumar Phukan Vs Union of India & Ors). The Bank opposed the writ petition by submitting that serious charges ha ving been established and findings having been not questioned before this Court, no interference was called with the imposition of penalty. It was submitted tha t charges against other persons who were differently dealt with, mentioned on be half of the appellant, were different. The Bank relied upon judgments of the Hon ’ble Supreme Court in :-