N.Ramakrishnan v. The Disciplinary Authority, Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank of India & Ors.

commitments under the Letter of Credits and thereforeliable for action as per the above Regulations.Charge No. 5:The petitioner unauthorisedly andwithout the knowledge of any other official and withoutentering into bank’s books, signed the letters to variousbanks confirming acceptance of documents under Letter ofCredits stating that payment of the said bills will be madeon due date and hence charged under the above saidRegulations.Charge No.5(A):In spite of knowledge of denial bythe beneficiary having involved in the Letter of Credittransaction being a fraud, the petitioner signed a letterdated 27.09.1990 to M/s. Standard Chartered Bank, Mylaporethat payment will be made on 20.02.1991, without knowledgeof any official from Bank and without recording in Letterof Credit register and therefore charged under the abovesaid Regulations.Charge No.6:All revolving Letter of Credits wereunauthorized signed by the petitioner and did not containthe important basic documents such as transport documents,insurance documents and commercial invoice. No limitingperiod was mentioned for presentation of documents fornegotiation from the date of shipments and the last date ofnegotiation as informed by the party without verifying andtaking necessary documentary evidence and therefore chargedunder the above said Regulations.Charge No.7:The petitioner has unauthorisedlytransferred a limit of Rs.5 lacs for cheque discountingfrom the account of M/s.Indodan Industries Ltd. for use atAddison Building, Madras for utilization of discountinglocal as well as up-country cheques drawn on M/s IndodanIndustries Ltd. Even higher authorities were not informedabout the same and not reported the position of accounts tothe Zonal Office, thus hiding an act done without authorityand in gross violation of bank’s rules and thereforecharged under the above said Regulations.2. The said charge sheet dated 10.01.1991, as well as,additional charge sheet dated 06.05.1991, accompanied the variousdocuments and list of witnesses and the petitioner has also inspectedvarious documents as admitted by him in his letter dated 04.02.1991,addressed to the Disciplinary Authority and Deputy General Manager,Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, New Delhi.3. The Assistant General Manager, Mr.P.E.Rawat, was appointed asthe Inquiring Authority on 10.08.1992 and after several sitting, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enquiry was concluded on 09.09.1995 and the management side hasproduced three witnesses in addition to the documentary evidence andultimately the Inquiring Authority has submitted his findings dated28.11.1995, a copy of which has been received by the petitioner on13.01.1996, by courier as admitted by him in his letter dated22.01.1996, addressed to the Deputy General Manger / DisciplinaryAuthority.4. The Inquiring Authority in the findings submitted by him hasconcluded that Charge Nos.1,2,3 and 5(A) has been proved and ChargeNo.6 as partly proved and has exonerated the petitioner from ChargeNos.4,5 and 7 as not having been proved. To the findings in theenquiry report, the petitioner has given his reply to theDisciplinary Authority on 22.01.1996 and ultimately the DisciplinaryAuthority has passed final orders on 19th / 24th of January 1998,holding that Charge Nos.1,2,3 and 5(A) are proved while Charge No.6partly proved and discharged the petitioner in respect of ChargeNos.4,5 & 7 and awarded the penalty of dismissal from service inrespect of Charge No.1, reduction by two stages in the time scale inrespect of Charge Nos.2, 3 & 5(A) and reduction by one stage in thetime scale in respect of Charge No.6 and exonerated the petitionerfrom Charge Nos.4,5 & 7 and awarded consolidated penalty of dismissalfrom bank service in terms of Regulation 4(h) of the Central Bank ofIndia Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.5. It was against the said order of the Disciplinary Authorityviz., the first respondent, the petitioner has filed appeal. TheAppellate Authority viz., the second respondent General Manager,Central Bank of India, Bombay who, by his letter dated 24.05.1999,has confirmed the punishment of dismissal as it was communicated tothe petitioner by the second respondent dated 14.06.1999. It is asagainst the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent asconfirmed by the second respondent Appellate Authority as statedabove, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.6. The main grounds on which the said order of dismissal ischallenged by the petitioner in this writ petition is as follows:(i)Vital documents which were required by the petitioner havenot been produced to him thereby the principles of Natural Justice isviolated.(ii) While major charge framed against the petitioner isthat he has allowed opening of revolving Letter of Credits withoutreinstatement clauses, whereas, the Letter of Credits opened werewith automatic reinstatement clause and therefore the charge itselfis not true and baseless.(iii)The said major charge itself is based on theinstruction dated 18.06.1980 and 08.09.1980, which according to thepetitioner, has been superseded by subsequent Central Office circulardated 22.10.1988, in which there is no prohibition to open Letter ofCredits as found in the circular dated 08.09.1980 and therefore, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transaction which took place between 1989-1990 were covered bysubsequent circular of the Central Office dated 22.10.1988 andtherefore reliance placed on the earlier circular dated 08.09.1980 ispatently wrong.(iv) In spite of repeated representation to call for the filesfrom the Zonal Office which would reveal that the petitioner hasinformed periodically about the opening of Letter of Credits, theManager, Janpath branch informed that the files of Indana Group weremissing and not traceable. It was in those circumstances that ZonalOffice files were requested to be perused and the petitioner wasinformed that the same is not possible since they are privilegeddocument and would amount to repetition.7. In the counter affidavit filled by the respondents it isstated that in respect of extending credit facilities, they aresanctioned by hierarchy of officers depending upon the nature, scopeand magnitude and also fix the maximum upper limit and one suchfacility extended by the bank is Letter of Credit facility. TheLetter of Credit is a facility being given at the request of thecustomer to the third party to make payment as per the stipulationscontained in the document and the Letter of Credit limit is given fora period of one year or less on a review of the conduct of theaccount or the customer. It is an arrangement which ensures that ifthe customer does not reimburse to the bank, the amount paid underthe Letter of Credit to the beneficiaries and the total contingentobligation of the bank exceeds the limit of the Letter of Credit, thebank could decline to issue further Letter of Credit. The Letter ofCredit is usually valid in respect of one transaction and in veryrare circumstances, revolving Letter of Credit is given to the thirdparty seller / supplier at the request of its customer. Therevolving Letter of Credit involves more than one transaction ofpurchase or sale. In respect of the said revolving Letter of Credit,a limit is established in respect of availability to the beneficiaryto the extent of bills drawn, in which event, it enables the bank tostop issue of such reinstatement letter thereby avoiding bank'sobligation to the third party. If such Letter of Credit is issuedwithout such restriction clause viz., reinstatement clause, thebeneficiary of the Letter of Credit gets the amount without waitingfor reinstatement advice. Therefore, in respect of revolving Letterof Credit with reinstatement clause, the liability of the openingbank will be restricted to the amount of the Letter of Credit,whereas in the case of revolving Letter of Credit without suchrestriction clause, the liability of the opening bank will increaseto the number of times by which the Letter of Credit revolves.Therefore, according to the respondents, banks do not issue revolvingLetter of Credit without reinstatement clause. 8. Further it is stated in the counter affidavit that in respectof Chief Manager, the aggregate credit limit to be sanctioned by himwas fixed at Rs.10 lakhs during 1988. Indodan Industries Ltd., and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Foremost Industries Ltd. were the customers of the bank in JanpathBranch, New Delhi. Out of whom Indodan Industries Ltd., wereenjoying Letter of Credit facility to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs whileForemost Industries was enjoying the said facility for Rs.25 lakhs.It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner who joined inthe service of the bank in the year 1972 is a Chartered Accountantand was promoted to the post of Senior Manager Grade Scale IV,working as Chief Manager, Janpath Branch between March 1988 to May1990. The case of the respondents is that during that time, it wasfound that the petitioner has opened number of automatic revolvingLetters of Credit without reinstatement clause in respect of theabove said two companies and has allowed Indodan Industries to enjoyautomatic irrevocable revolving Letter of Credit for Rs.3,63,195/-for a period of 36 months in favour of Mani Management ConsultantsPrivate Limited. Therefore, he has allowed the said Mani ManagementConsultants Private Limited to receive the amount without IndodanIndustries paying the amount to the bank thereby allowing to enjoy anunauthorised credit limit to an extent of Rs.1,30,75,020/- andlikewise in respect of Foremost Industries India Limited also he hasallowed an unauthorised credit limit to an extent of Rs.91,55,736/-.It was also found that Indodan Industries had an outstanding ofRs.89.38 lakhs as against the sanctioned limit of Rs.30 lakhs and theForemost Industries India Limited having an outstanding of Rs.50.56lakhs against the sanctioned limit of Rs.25 lakhs and the petitionerhas allowed the said companies to unauthorizedly withdraw the amountapproximately running to Rs.47 lakhs. It was also found that thepetitioner has signed various Letter of Credit without having basicdocuments. It was on that basis, the memo of charge dated 10.01.1991was issued. By letter dated 28.11.1990, the petitioner has confirmedof opening of various letter of credit stating that it was within thedelegated power of the Chief Manager and he was not aware of thedifference between opening of Letter of Credit revolving withreinstatement clause and without reinstatement clause.9. In the enquiry conducted at Delhi, three witnesses wereexamined and the petitioner has not chosen to examine any witness.The Enquiry Officer has given a finding on 28.11.1995, holding thatCharge Nos.1,2,3 & 5A were proved while Charge No.6 partly proved andCharge Nos.4,5 & 7 not proved. Copy of the findings were given tothe petitioner and second show cause notice was issued as per theconduct rules to which the petitioner has given his reply. Afterconsidering all these, the Disciplinary Authority passed orders on19/24.01.1998, dismissing the petitioner from service and the appealpreferred by the petitioner was rejected. The order passed by theAppellate Authority at Bombay was communicated by the thirdrespondent to the petitioner since at that time, the petitioner wasemployed in the Zonal Office in Chennai, within the administrativecontrol of the third respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. It is the case of the respondents that no cause of actionarose within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is also theirfurther case that there is no error apparent on the face of theimpugned order. The third respondent has no role exceptcommunicating the order of the Appellate Authority to the petitioner,since the petitioner at that time was under the administrativecontrol of the third respondent. Merely because the order in appealwas communicated at Chennai, it cannot be said that this Court hasjurisdiction. 11. It is also stated that during the time of enquiry, thepetitioner was not placed under suspension. There is no violation ofprinciples of Natural Justice. The petitioner was defended byMr.J.K.Ramprasad, who was an erstwhile Office bearer of the CentralBank of India Officers' Association and who was also well versed withthe procedure in the disciplinary proceedings. It is also statedthat two circulars dated 18.06.1980 and 08.09.1980, specificallyprohibited the opening of letter of credit with automaticreinstatement clause. Subsequent circular dated 22.10.1988, is onlyinconsonance with the earlier circular and the same was only issuedenhancing the power of the hierarchy of officers in case of uppercredit limit. There is no change in the opening of Letter of Creditwith automatic reinstatement clause. The file which the petitionerrequires was found missing, however, the petitioner was able toproduced copies of certain documents which ought to have been foundplace in the missing files. The petitioner has not explained thesource from which he was able to get possession of the saiddocuments. Further, the Disciplinary Authority has dealt with theabove aspect. It is also stated that in as much as the charge itselfis on opening of revolving letter of credit without reinstatementclause, which was not denied, the non production of the said fileswould not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Even though thebank was able to produce the cheques amounting to Rs.36,85,511/- andthe remaining amount was not available, the petitioner in his letterdated 14.09.1990, has not disputed payment of Rs.47 lakhs.12. According to the respondents in the counter affidavit,enquiry was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and thepetitioner has never made any grievance regarding the conduct of theenquiry. It is also specifically stated in the counter affidavit bythe respondents that the petitioner had opened the revolving lettersof credit with automatic reinstatement and revolving letter ofcredit without reinstatement clause which in effect amounts to nothaving reinstatement clause at all. By allowing the opening in thesaid manner, the petitioner has exceeded the credit limits and therespondents sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner would submit that the entire disciplinary proceedings havebeen continued as if the petitioner has committed the charges by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relying upon the two letters of the petitioner dated 28.01.1990 and04.12.1991. The genesis of the case of the petitioner is that he wascompetent to open the letter of credit of any category and that hehad reported the said fact to the Zonal Office and had obtained theirapproval. According to him, in the circular dated 18.06.1980, therewas no embargo regarding opening of revolving Letters of Credit. Thesubsequent circular dated 08.09.1980, is only a clarification and anyrestriction imposed in the said clarification cannot be read with theoriginal circular dated 18.06.1980. He would also submit that thevery charge itself is not correct for the reason that charge memo isfor the opening of revolving Letter of credit without reinstatementclause, whereas, the charge itself does not refer to the opening ofautomatic revolving Letters of Credit but only refers to revolvingLetter of Credit. The clarification circular dated 08.09.1980, onlyprohibits opening of automatic revolving letter of credit and in asmuch as the charge is not relating to opening of automatic revolvingletter of credit, Clause 8 of the clarification circular dated08.09.1980, cannot be applied and therefore according to him thecharges framed are not correct. 14. The second submission is that while the charge itself isagainst the petitioner for having opened the letter of credit withoutreinstatement clause, but all the letter of credit referred to in theannexure to charge sheet marked as document during the enquiry infact contains reinstatement clause and therefore, the charge shouldbe deemed not to have been proved. Therefore the DisciplinaryAuthority has proceeded on a wrong assumption that the letter ofcredit have been opened without reinstatement clause which isfactually incorrect. He has also submitted that only in the counteraffidavit the respondents have improved the charge by including theautomatic revolving letters of credit which is equivalent to theletter of credit without reinstatement clause. In as much as it isnot the charge, the respondents cannot be permitted to improve thecase.15. It is the further contention of the learned senior counselthat in respect of opening of letter of credit, the petitioner hasalways reported the same and got the approval from the Zonal Office.Further the petitioner has also marked 83 document which are thecorrespondents between the Branch Office and the Zonal Office and therelevancy has also been proved. However, the Enquiry Officer hasrefused to deliver the said 83 documents on the basis that therelevancy has not been proved. Further, the petitioner hasspecifically stated that the higher authorities has full knowledgeabout the opening of the letter of credit and have never found faultwith and the said statement, has not been specifically denied. Thenon-marking of 83 documents disabled the petitioner to prove the casethat Zonal Office was informed about the opening of letter of credit.The claim of the respondents that production of files from ZonalOffice is privileged documents is not correct. He would also submit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that in the absence any charge of misappropriation or personal gainto the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from service is notproportionate to the charge itself. He would also submit that twoletters dated 28.09.1990 and 04.02.1991 of the petitioners does notamount to acceptance. What was stated in the letter dated28.09.1990, which was before the issue of charge sheet was that theZonal Office has knowledge of opening of letters of credit and therehas been daily audit by M.S.Nanda, Chartered Accountant. The letterdated 04.02.1991, is after the charge sheet, wherein the petitionerhas not accepted the charge and made it clear that the letters ofcredit were opened on instruction from the higher authorities. Hewould also rely upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inCoimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Vs. Coimbatore DistrictCentral Cooperative Bank Employees Association and another ((2007) 4SCC 669) and Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India and another ((2008) 3SCC 484), to substantiate his contention regarding theproportionality of punishment. Finally the learned senior counselhas also submitted that the petitioner is reaching the age ofsuperannuation on 01.05.2008 and therefore, the petitioner cannotpress for reinstatement and in those circumstances, he submitted thatthe impugned order ought to be set aside.16. On the other hand Mr.V.Karthick, learned counsel appearingfor the respondents would submit that in the first instance, thisCourt has no jurisdiction. His submission is that show-cause noticeswere issued in Delhi and the petitioner has replied to the Delhioffice apart from the fact that the act of the petitioner during1988-1990 itself is when he was working in Janpath branch, Delhi.Even the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by theAppellate Authority at Bombay and the third respondent has onlycommunicated the order to the petitioner since at that time, thepetitioner was working at Chennai under the administrative control ofthe third respondent. He relied upon the judgments reported in KusumIngots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another (2004 (3) CTC365) and Canon Steels P. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs (2008 (1)CTC 92) to substantiate his contention that jurisdiction can beeither at New Delhi or Bombay and not at Chennai. 17. As far as the violation of principles of Natural Justice isconcerned, he would submit that even by non-production of documentswhich were unable to be produced because of loss, there is noprejudice caused to the petitioner. His submission is that revolvingletter of credit is well known in the banking transaction whichrelates to multiple proceedings namely, repeated financialtransaction and only if it contains reinstatement clause, the bankwill be protected and the circular dated 18.06.1980, speaks aboutrevised lending power. However, the subsequent circular issued in1988, which has not superseded the previous circular issued in 1980specifically prohibits opening of automatic letter of credit.Automatic letter of credit means without reinstatement clause. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner being a Chartered Accountant, cannot be permitted to saythat he was not aware of those terms especially when he has been inthe banking service from 1972 onwards. When the petitioner himselfhas admitted opening of letter of credit without reinstatementclause, as an officer have the sanction power to the limit extendingupto Rs.10 lakhs cannot go beyond the same by allowing the letter ofcredit without reinstatement clause and it is the crux of the charge.In as much as the petitioner has not rebutted the evidence producedon the side of the Management, it is not open to the petitioner tocomplain about violation of natural justice. 18. As far as the documents are concerned, the non-production isonly an useless formality and opportunity has been given to examine,which he did and having specifically admitted to the opening ofletter of credit without reinstatement clause, the documents werenot relevant. Even assuming that opening of such letter of creditwithout reinstatement clause was known to the Zonal Office, that doesnot mean that charge become baseless. There is absolutely noprejudice caused to the petitioner in non-production of the saiddocuments. 19. In respect of the Zonal Office files, privilege wereclaimed, however, the petitioner has produced xerox copies of thedocuments and the petitioner has at no point of time raised anyprejudice caused to him during the time of enquiry. Therefore, theclaim of violation of principles of Natural Justice is only a futileattempt. He would also rely upon the judgment reported inK.S.Varadarajan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal), (2005 (1)CTC 538). He would submit that the Appellate Authority and theDisciplinary Authority have exhaustively dealt with the matter andtherefore, the scope of judicial review is restricted. He wouldfairly submit that it is true that there is no allegation ofcorruption against the petitioner.20. I have heard Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counselappearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Karthick, learned counselappearing for the respondents and gave my anxious thoughts to variousissues involved in this case.21. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working asChief Manager, Janpath Branch during the year 1988-1990, the periodto which the charges relate. The first charge which is stated tohave been proved in the enquiry based on which the order of dismissalhas been passed by the Disciplinary Authority and as confirmed by theAppellate Authority, specifically states that the petitioner whileworking as Chief Manager in the branch office at Janpath, New Delhiduring 1989-1990 opened number of revolving letter of credit invarious accounts of Indana Group of Companies and the said revolvingletter of credit were opened without reinstatement clause which isagainst the Terms of Sanction, Manual of Instructions and the Central https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Office Guidelines. The original charge sheet is dated 10.01.1991.Much before the charge sheet, by a letter dated 28.11.1990, which wasmarked as ME 49 in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner hasstated: “Please note that I have given my explanations for openingof letters of credits and I have never denied opening ofletter of credit. Nevertheless, I may mention thatwherever I have opened the letters of credits it has beendone under the impression that it was within the delegatedpowers of the Chief Manager of the branch. However, it wasonly on 08.09.1990, when the undersigned met the AssistantGeneral Manger, along with Mr.SK Goyal, Chief OfficerAdvances, B/O Janpath and Mr.CV Jain, Financial Analystposted at the Branch, the subtle difference between openingof letter of credit on revolving basis with reinstatementclause and without reinstatement clause dawned on me.”He has also further stated that:“However, please note that I was always under theimpression that the above letters of credits opening arewithin the delegated powers of the Chief Manager of theBranch and I was opening these letters of credits presumingthat it is within the sanctioned limit”Thus, it is in clear terms a candid admission on the part of thepetitioner that he has been allowed to open letter of credit withoutreinstatement clause, however, stating that he has no knowledge aboutthe subtle difference between the letter of credit on revolving basiswith reinstatement clause and without reinstatement clause. 22. It is seen from the circular of the bank dated 18.06.1980,which was marked as ME 54 in the departmental proceedings that itrelates to delegation of authority to the officers with lendingpowers. In the said circular, the lending power limit of AssistantGeneral Managers is Rs.10.00 lakhs and Chief / Divisional Managers isRs.5.00 lakhs etc., and there is no dispute that the said circulardated 18.06.1980, relates purely on the lending power of hierarchy ofofficers. 23. By a subsequent circular dated 08.09.1980, which is markedas ME 55, certain clarifications have been issued to the earliercircular dated 18.06.1980. The clarification relates to variousheads like Other Term Loans, Eduction Loans, Renewal of Limits,Commodities Under Selective Credit Control, Trade Advances, OverdraftFacilities in Savings Bank Account and Letters of Credit. Under thesaid circular, the clarification regarding Letters of Credit isstated as follows:“8. Letters of Credit: Sanctioning powers have beenspecified under Group IV for opening letters of credit, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ either on clean basis or on D.P. Basis. We have noobjection to the delegatees exercising these powers foropening Revolving Letters of Credit (D.P. basis and notD.A. basis), subject to incorporating in the relative L/Csthe “Reinstatement Clause”. All the delegatees, however,shall not open any L/C which is an “Automatic RevolvingLetter of Credit”.” 24. It cannot be said, as correctly found by the disciplinaryauthority that the clarification circular dated 08.09.1980, is notbinding on the petitioner on the ground that the said circular dated08.09.1980, cannot go beyond the original circular dated 18.06.1980.Further in terms of the said circular dated 08.09.1980, which is incontinuance of earlier circular dated 18.06.1980, which relates tothe lending power of officials, it is very clear that subject to thelending powers of the officials, no one of the officers are permittedto open letter of credit which is an automatic revolving letter ofcredit. It is also made clear that there is no objection for openingrevolving letter of credit subject to the reinstatement clause.25. The subsequent circular issued by the bank dated 22.10.1988,is only relating to revised lending powers issued on 18.06.1980,02.02.1982, 17.01.1983 and 28.10.1986 and by such revision of lendingpowers, it does not mean that clarification given on 08.09.1980,under the head Letters of Credit are superseded by the said circulardated 22.10.1988, especially in the absence of any such specificclause in the circular dated 22.10.1988, super ceding the previouscirculars. The charge in this regard is clear that the petitionerhas opened revolving letters of credit without reinstatement clause,which in terms of the said circular dated 08.09.1980, is clearlyprohibited.26. A reading of the letter of the petitioner dated 28.11.1990,along with Charge No.1, shows that there is no discrepancy at all.Even though it is stated in the counter affidavit of the respondentsthat:“Banks do not issue revolving letters of credit withautomatic reinstatement clause”,which according to them mean opening of letter of credit withoutreinstatement clause, the counter affidavit makes it very clear asfollows:“In the case of revolving letter of credit, with therestriction clause the liability of the opening bank willbe restricted to the amount of the letter of credit,whereas in the case of revolving letter of credit withoutsuch restriction clause, the liability of the letter ofcredit opening will increase to the number of times bywhich the letter of credit revolves.”Therefore, it is clear that charges relate to opening of letter of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ credit by the petitioner without reinstatement clause. It meansthat opening of such facilities without reinstatement clause, willmake the bank liable for multiple transaction which are in the formof repeated financial transactions. The same may run into manymonths in which case, there is a possibility of overdrawing of multifold extent, that is the reason why the circular dated 08.09.1980,prohibits such opening of revolving letter of credit withoutreinstatement clause and that has been made equivalent in the saidcircular as “Automatic revolving letter of credit”. Therefore, thecontention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionerthat the charge is defective is not acceptable at all.27. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing forthe petitioner that the letter of credit opened by the petitioner hasin fact contained reinstatement clause as it is seen in ME 16 whichwas annexed to the charge memo is also baseless. It is true that ME16 originally contains a clause about reinstatement advice andsubsequently on the request of Foremost Industries the petitionerremoved that clause by letter dated 21.06.1989, which is marked as ME18 which formed part of ME 16. The petitioner has in fact deletedthe clause followed by letter of Foremost Industries dated21.06.1989, which is marked as ME 17. The relevant passage is asfollows:“And further negotiation be made only on receipt ofreinstatement advice.”Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had in fact openedletter of credit without reinstatement clause.28. The foremost among the complaints is the violation of theprinciples of natural justice which relates to non-production of someof the documents relating to communication from the Zonal Office. Itis true that the Enquiry Officer, has been stating that such recordswould be furnished but ultimately, has informed that those recordsare not traceable and in respect of some records, privilege has beenraised by the respondents. At the same time, it is not in disputethat the petitioner has produced 83 documents pertaining to the ZonalOffice which are xerox copies and the same has been taken intoaccount by the enquiry officer but has questioned as to how suchdocuments were obtained when originals were missing in the ZonalOffice. Be that as it may, the crux of the contention by thepetitioner is that in the xerox copies of those documents, it isclear that when the conduct of the petitioner in granting letter ofcredit without reinstatement clause being periodically informed tothe Zonal Office which was not objected to. In fact in the agenda ofthe meeting which are held periodically, in respect of the twocompanies, the matters have been taken up and ultimately decided thatthe financial position of the companies are satisfactory containingthe signature of the Deputy General Manager who happens to be theDisciplinary Authority as it is seen in DE 86, which is one of theBoard meeting resolution with Balance Sheet. It is true that in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said copies of the documents the Disciplinary Authority has alsosigned along with other officials viz., Chief Manager etc., includingthe petitioner being the Branch Manager, but a reading of the saiddocuments, no where reveal that the Zonal Office or DisciplinaryAuthority himself has considered about the opening of the letter ofcredit by the petitioner without reinstatement clause. In suchcircumstances, the contention of the learned senior counsel appearingfor the petitioner that production of originals of the said xeroxcopies of the Zonal Office would have been helpful to the petitionerhas no meaning.29. The enquiry proceedings show that in respect of 83 documentsrelevance of which have been explained by defence representative tothe Inquiring Authority, the Inquiring Authority on 20.03.1995, hasspecifically stated that:“Documents listed in the Interim List numbering 83 aredelivered herewith.”which shows that relevant documents have been furnished to thepetitioner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said as if anyprejudice has been caused to the petitioner.30. The Enquiry proceedings shows that all the 83 documentsrequested by the petitioner has been shown except one file pertainingto Foremost industries (I) Ltd, yet to be traced by the JanpathBranch. It was after disclosing all files except one as statedabove, the Presiding Officer has informed that the files of ZonalOffice cannot be shown as there are privileged documents andultimately it was informed that files have been missing at Janpathbranch and not traceable in spite of efforts.31. In respect of the said documents, which was specificallyadmitted by the defence representative that the said documents werepursued and notes taken and merely because those notes were destroyedby the petitioner's representative on the belief that documents willbe furnished, it is not a ground to state as if the petitioner wasnot aware of the documents at all. It is also admitted by thedefence representative during the enquiry on 20.03.1995, which is asfollows:“As desired by you, we have gone through the 83discovered documents and were preparing the relevancy from10.A.M. to 4.00 P.M.”It is relevant to point out that on 06.09.1995, the petitioner beingthe chargesheeted officer has informed the Inquiring Authority asfollows:“ I deny all the allegations, made against me, incharge sheet by the Management. The management casebrought on the record, has not proved even a single chargeagainst me. The management witnesses who deposed insupport of the Management case also did not prove any ofthe allegations contained in the charge sheet. Neither the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ documents nor the witnesses could even slightly hint at anymisconduct on my part, to warrant the present charge sheet.In the absence of management's failure to prove any of thecharges, I feel that I am vindicated from the charge sheetand, therefore, the charge sheet should be dismissed asbaseless”Further in categoric terms he has stated that he has not produced anywitnesses or documents as follows: “In this connection, I once again state that I am notproducing any witnesses to prove the charge sheet. I wouldbe merely relying on the exhibits in support of my defencecase.”32. It is also found that on 09.09.1995, the xerox copies ofthe Zonal Office files have been produced numbering 26 documents bythe petitioner. In spite of objections by the Presenting Officer onbehalf of the Employer, the Inquiring Authority has allowed the saiddocuments which is as follows:“Normally we are not accepting the xerox copies ofexhibits in enquiry. However, considering the peculiarcircumstances under which the xerox are submitted, we allowthe defence to submit the xerox of the documents only afterbeing duly examined the relevancy. As regards to yoursubmitting the relevancy of earlier 83 documents withoutbeing examined in the enquiry proceedings, I do not admitthe same.”Therefore, it is clear that as far as the xerox copies of ZonalOffice numbering 26 documents have been taken into consideration andin respect of 83 documents except one, all other documents wereadmittedly pursued by the petitioner. As narrated above, they arerelating to various proceedings of the bank and reference to whichdoes not show that the petitioner has opened the revolving letter ofcredit without reinstatement clause. It is relevant to note that thepetitioner by his order dated 11.09.1998, has in fact admittedclearly that due opportunity has been given during the enquiry. 33. Therefore, the over all factual position ascertained basedon the enquiry proceedings, it is clear that by non-production of 83documents from the Zonal Office, which are either claimed to bemissing or claimed to be privileged documents which were in factpursued by the petitioner, as admitted by him, has not caused anyprejudice to the petitioner at all. On the other hand xerox copiesof 26 documents from the Zonal Office produced by the petitioner havebeen admitted.34. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 24.05.1999, hasdismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner recorded a finding thatno fresh or additional details/information are brought out by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ charge sheeted officer and confirmed the punishment awarded by theDisciplinary Authority. 35. As per Regulation 17 of the Central Bank of India OfficerEmployees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, a reference tothe entire disciplinary proceedings, makes it clear that procedurecontemplated under Regulation 6 of the said Regulations 1976, havebeen complied with even though it is stated in proviso to Regulation6(4) that in case where the articles of charge are admitted by theofficer / employee it may not be necessary to hold an enquiry. Anelaborate enquiry has been conducted. Therefore, there is noprocedural flaw in the disciplinary proceedings by the respondents.36. While considering about the non-supply of documents wherethe same was prejudicial to the interest of the delinquent, theHon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank ofCommerce ((2006) 10 SCC 572) has held that in the absence of anyallegation of mala fides, bias or violation of principles of naturaljustice, non-supply of a document, where such omission caused noprejudice to the delinquent, did not amount to denial of reasonableopportunity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held on the factual matrix ofthat case in para 13 as follows :“13. Mr G.C. Luthra went to the box as PW 2. He deniedto have received the amount of Rs 10 lakhs. In cross-examination he denied to have given any letter of authorityfor transfer of funds from one account to another account.He also denied to have issued any receipt for Rs.10 lakhstowards the disposal of any property to M/s MoradabadBuilders. Mr G.C. Luthra in cross-examination furtherdenied that he either collected the TPO for Rs.10 lakhs orgave instructions to the appellant for crediting it tovarious accounts. The appellant after obtaining adversestatement against him in cross-examination did not furthercross-examine Mr G.C. Luthra by confronting him with thealleged signature of Mr G.C. Luthra. At the close of theenquiry, the appellant himself requested the enquiryofficer to obtain the opinion of a handwriting expert. Itwas done by him to test the denial of the statement of MrG.C. Luthra in cross-examination. The report so obtainedconfirmed the statement of Mr G.C. Luthra in cross-examination. The appellant could not impeach the statementof Mr G.C. Luthra in cross-examination that he never gaveany letter of authority for transfer of funds from oneaccount to another account. He had never issued any receiptfor Rs 10 lakhs towards the disposal of any property toM/s Moradabad Builders. The appellant has accepted thestatement of Mr G.C. Luthra. The handwriting expertconfirmed the statement of Mr G.C. Luthra in cross-examination. No prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused tothe appellant by non-furnishing of the copy of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ handwriting expert confirming the statement of Mr G.C.Luthra in cross-examination. There is no allegation of malafides, bias or violation of principles of natural justice,which has been brought to our notice.”While considering about the violation of Regulations governing theBank employees, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in para 18that merely because there is no amount of loss caused to the bank itis not a ground to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct of abank officer viz.,“18. It will be noticed that the appellant was chargedfor the alleged violation of Regulation 3(1) of theRegulations, 1982. Regulation 3(1) reads:“3. (1) Every officer employee shall, at alltimes take all possible steps to ensure and protectthe interests of the bank and discharge his dutieswith utmost integrity, honesty, devotion anddiligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of abank officer.” The regulation ensures that every officer at all timestakes all possible steps to protect the interests of theBank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity,honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which willbe unbecoming of a bank officer. Such regulations are madeto instill the public confidence in the bank so that theinterests of customers/depositors are well safeguarded. Insuch a situation the fact that no amount was lost to thebank would be no ground to take a lenient view for theproved misconduct of a bank officer.”37. Applying the dictum laid down above to the facts of thepresent case, the charges levelled against the petitioner are underRegulation 3 (1) & (3) of the Central Bank of India OfficerEmployees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 which are as follows:“3. (1) Every officer employee shall, at all timestake all possible steps to ensure and protect the interestsof the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity,honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which isunbecoming of a bank officer.(2).....(3) No officer employee shall, in the performance ofhis official duties or in the exercise of powers conferredon him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except whenhe is acting under the direction of his official superior.”read with Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India OfficerEmployees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, which relatesto penalties, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quantum of punishment especially when the Disciplinary Authority hasexhaustively dealt with the entire issue in a threadbare manner. 38. While considering about the nature of the AppellateAuthority order, the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court inK.S.Varadarajan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal), Madras(Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops andEstablishment Act, 1947), Labour Welfare Building, D.M.S. Compound,Madras and another reported in (2005 (1) CTC 538) has held that theAppellate Authority cannot be expected to write an elaborate orderlike a judgment of a regular Civil Court. The relevant para 5 is asfollows:“5. It must be understood that the appellate authorityis the Deputy Labour Commissioner and he is not expected towrite an elaborate and as good a judgment as a regularCivil Court would do. He is only an executive authorityand we cannot expect the executive authority to write asgood a judgment as a trained judicial officer. Moreover,this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiacannot re-appreciate the evidence nor can it go into thequestion of adequacy of evidence. As long as there is someevidence in support of the charges this Court cannotinterfere.”39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in State Bank ofIndia and Others Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde ((2006) 7 SCC 212) : 2006-III-LLJ 563 that officers of bank are holding position of trust andtherefore they deserve no leniency in punishment and the judicialreview is not akin to adjudication on merits on re-appreciation ofevidence. It is held in para 6 and 21 as follows:“6. Before we proceed further, we may observe at thisstage that it is unfortunate that the High Court has actedas an Appellate Authority despite the consistent view takenby this Court that the High Court and the Tribunal whileexercising the judicial review do not act as an AppellateAuthority: “Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confinedto correct errors of law or procedural error, ifany, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice orviolation of principles of natural justice. Judicialreview is not akin to adjudication on merit byreappreciating the evidence as an AppellateAuthority.” (See Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. NasrullahKhan1, SCC p.379, para 11.)- - - - - - - - - - - 21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law,learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniencymay be shown to the respondent having regard to long yearsof service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We areunable to countenance such submission. As already said, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trustwhere honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements offunctioning and it would not be proper to deal with thematter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bankand it needs to be emphasised that in the banking businessabsolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needsto be preserved by every bank employee and in particularthe bank officer so that the confidence of thepublic/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reasonthat when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in thepresent case, for his personal ends and against theinterest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealtwith iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt withleniently.”40. As far as the issue relating to Jurisdiction of this Courtis concerned, it is true that the charges against the petitioner weremade while he was working in the Janpath Branch, New Delhi during1989-1990, an enquiry was conducted there and order of theDisciplinary Authority was passed at New Delhi. The AppellateAuthority is situated in Bombay and by the time the appeal wasdisposed of, the petitioner was working at Chennai and therefore theorder was communicated to the petitioner at Chennai and thepetitioner was accordingly dismissed from service when he was workingat Chennai. Since, admittedly the petitioner was not kept undersuspension during the pendency of the enquiry, and after theAppellate Authority's order has been dismissed, it cannot be saidthat no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction ofthis Court. As it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in para6 in Ex.Rect (MP) A.Madurai Veeran No.7779447K Vs. Union of India,rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Defence, New Delhiand others (2006 (1) CTC 732) which is as follows:“6. These correspondences between the petitioner andsome of the respondents clearly indicate that part of thecause of action has definitely arisen within the territoryof Madras High Court, within Tamil Nadu and subsequentlywithin the territory of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.In our opinion, it cannot be said that no part of the causeof action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction ofthe Madras High Court (Madurai Bench). Our aforesaidconclusion receives considerable support from severaldecisions, including that of the Supreme Court inNavinchandra N.Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007 (7)SCC 640).”41. In view of the same, I have no hesitation to come to theconclusion that the impugned order of punishment by the DisciplinaryAuthority as well as the Appellate Authority are not liable to beinterfered with, since there is no illegality or perversity in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said order. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.Kk1. The Disciplinary Authority, Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank of India, New Delhi.2. Appellate Authority, General Manager, Central Bank of India, Central Office, Chawdur Mukhi Nariman Point, Bombay – 400 021.3. General Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, 48/49 Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.+ 1 CC To M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co Advocate SR NO.27461 ORDER IN W.P.No.12362 of 1999 AND CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITION GB(CO)SRA(06/06/2008)