Pradeep Kumar Das v. The Chairman, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Ranchi

14/ 18.01.2023 Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Ref. No. JGB:HO:IR:2014-15:23 dated 29.04.2014, issued by the General Manager- cum-Competent Authority, Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Annexure-5), by which the competent authority has decided to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition major penalty of dismissal dated 18.06.2015 has been passed by the General Manager and the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the said dismissal order also. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order dated

04.09.2015 (Annexure-27), passed by the Chairman-cum-Appellate Authority, Jharkhand Gramin Bank whereby departmental appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Jharkhand Gramin Bank on 14.02.1985. It is the case of the petitioner that 2 when he was posted at Harhargutte Branch as Clerk-cum-Cashier, an FIR was lodged by the Sr. Branch Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank against the petitioner and four named persons under Sections 420, 406, 468, 477 (A), 408, 409 & 34 IPC on the allegation of defalcation of money and dereliction of duties. Thereafter, the petitioner has been put under suspension and on 25.11.2013, show-cause notice was issued under the signature of Regional Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank and petitioner was directed to submit his reply within a period of 7 days. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.12.2013, however, the respondents being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, informed him that departmental proceeding will be initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, hold the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the General Manager-cum- Competent Authority vide letter dated 16.03.2015, direct the petitioner to submit his reply to the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his reply on 04.04.2015 denying the enquiry report as the entire enquiry report is perverse and based on no evidence. However, being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 18.06.2015, the competent authority awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service under Regulation-39.2(b) of Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Services Regulations, 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal, however, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on

04.09.2015 and affirmed the order of dismissal issued against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of this grievances. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the order of dismissal dated 18.06.2015 is absolutely illegal in view of the fact that entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is violative of principle of natural justice and further the enquiry report is absolutely perverse and based on no evidence. Learned counsel further argues that the department has failed to produce the 3 complainants as witnesses to prove the charges levelled by them against the petitioner. Further, in the departmental proceeding, the document examiner, Sri Purushottam Chatterjee has not been examined to prove the report inspite of request made by the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that the competent authority has passed the order of dismissal on the basis of statement of the then Branch Manager namely, Sri Pankaj Kumar though he is the main culprit but he has been left-off in the department enquiry by giving minor punishment to him. Learned counsel also submits that even the appellate authority has not considered that the material witnesses have not been examined in the departmental proceeding and has also failed to consider that no charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved by the Bank. Learned counsel accordingly submits that on these scores, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (I) State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364; (II) Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. M.J. Jamesh, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 301; & (III) Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank by vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent-Bank in 2013 detected that in one of the branch Harharguttu, one Saving A/c. No. 2257 of Dobra Godsora, who happened to be employee of TISCO, a sum of Rs.5349.45 every month was being credited. Said Dobra Godsora died on 11.10.2001 and since then no withdrawal from this account is being done. Later on another name in the account was added being Naran Godsora and Rs.9.25 lakhs withdrawn from the account in six transactions after the death of said Dobra Godsora. It has been noticed that before 25.10.2008, this account was single account. In the computer ‘deceased’ word has been added besides the name of the account holder and thus after the death of the said account holder, the account was not in operation. Later on, another name 4 Naran Godsora has been added and nature of account has been changed from single to joint account with either or survivor withdrawal facility. It has been found that all the above changes have been made in the computer with ID of the petitioner without following proper procedure or norms of the Bank. Thereafter, the signature of the petitioner was examined by document examiner, who was of the opinion that the specimen signature of the petitioner is matched with handwriting of petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Das. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged and simultaneously departmental proceeding was initiated following the cardinal principal of law, in which the petitioner was held guilty of the charges and consequently, he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was affirmed by the appellate authority and as such, there is no any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. Learned counsel further contends that in banking, trust in bank employees is an essential ingredient without which the bank's business cannot run, and when the Bank Officials have lost their trust due to dishonesty, the Bank has no choice but remove the erring Officer/Employee. If such latitude is granted to any employee while they are acting dishonestly, the other employees will be encouraged. As a result, the Bank had a moral and legal obligation under the law to dismiss such employees. 7. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons: I) Admittedly, the guilt against the petitioner has been proved in the departmental proceeding and the punishment of dismissal inflicted by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the appellate authority. II) Nothing has been brought on record to show that any foully was committed by the respondents in the entire departmental proceeding. 5 III) The petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to show perversity on the part of the enquiry officer. IV) Law is well settled that when there is concurrent finding by the two authorities, the Court should not interference unless and until perversity is shown. The evidence cannot be reappraised by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the Court should refrain itself from reappraising the evidence which has been set at rest by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority. V) The respondent-bank has lost its confidence in the employee and as such, dismissal was the only punishment to get rid of such employee who wants to dupe the employer. It hardly matters whether the charges are of misappropriation of a single farthing or of hundred Crores. The misconduct once proved in the departmental proceeding cannot be re-appreciated by the High Court. VI) Once the departmental enquiry is held as legal and valid and there is no violation of principles of natural justice, the only question left out to be decided by this Court is the quantum of punishment.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union Bank of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 310 has held as under:- into relate “12. After hearing the rival contentions, we are of the firm view that all the four charge-sheets which were enquired to serious misconduct. The respondent was unable to demonstrate before us how prejudice was caused to him due to non-supply of the enquiry authority’s report/findings in the present case. It needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer. If this is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court had committed an error while setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent on the ground of prejudice on 6 account of non-furnishing of the enquiry report/findings to him.” Further, in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank Vs. Munna Lal Jain, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 84, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: depositors “17. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, there is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulting in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court. Further in case of Karnataka SRTC v. A.T. Mane, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “12. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal.” In the case of Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 187, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: 7 delinquent “18. In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs 360.95. This Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded employees who misappropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating Corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment.” Further in the case of Noharlal Verma Vs. Distt. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

37. In our opinion, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that such punishment is grossly disproportionate or excessively high. Normally in exercise of power of “judicial review”, a writ court will not substitute its own judgment or decision for the judgment or decision of a disciplinary authority unless it comes to the conclusion that it has shocked the conscience of the court or the punishment is such that no “reasonable man” would impose such punishment or in the words of Lord Scarman in Nottinghamshire County Council v. Secy. of State for the Environment that the decision is so absurd that one is satisfied that the decision-maker at the time of making decision “must have taken leave of his senses”. In case of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “25. … In the present day scenario, corruption has been treated to have the potentiality of corroding the marrows of the economy. There are cases where the amount is small, and in certain cases, it is extremely high. The gravity of the offence in such a case, in our considered opinion, is not to be adjudged on the bedrock of the quantum of bribe. An attitude to abuse the official position to extend favour in lieu of benefit is a crime against the collective and an anathema to the basic tenets 8 of democracy, for it erodes the faith of the people in the system. It creates an incurable concavity in the rule of law.” In Rajasthan SRTC v. Bajrang Lal, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 693, the Hon’ble Apex Court, following judgment passed in case of Municipal Committee v. Krishnan Behari, (1996) 2 SCC 714, has opined that, “in cases involving corruption there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. It has been further held that any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. In the said case (Rajasthan SRTC), the respondent employee was awarded punishment of removal from service. In the present case it is compulsory retirement. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that on an earlier occasion, the appellant was awarded a minor punishment for his misconduct, regarding defalcation of stamps. And now he is found guilty for the second time. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vrs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, has held that, “It can only consider whether enquiry held by the competent authority was in accordance with procedure established by law and principles of natural justice, whether irrelevant or extraneous considerations and/or exclusion of admissible or material evidence or admission of inadmissible evidence have influenced decision rendering it vulnerable”. The Hon’ble Court further held that, “it can interfere where finding is wholly arbitrary and capricious based on no evidence which no reasonable man could ever arrive at”.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Union of India & Ors. Vrs. P. Gunasekaran (supra) has further held that:

20. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent 9 lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford Dictionary is “moral uprightness; honesty”. It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence, etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values. irreproachability, uprightness, rectitude, nobility, several

21. The impugned conduct of the respondent working as Deputy Office Superintendent in a sensitive department of Central Excise, according to the disciplinary authority, reflected lack of integrity warranting discontinuance in service. That view has been endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal also. Thereafter, it is not open to the High Court to go into the proportionality of punishment or substitute the same with a lesser or different punishment. These aspects have been discussed at quite length by this including B.C. Court Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1039] , Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn. [(2007) 4 SCC 669 : (2007) 2 SCC India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri [(2009) 15 SCC 620 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 499] in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply [Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 38] . the recent one (L&S) 68] decisions , Coal

24. The Central Administrative Tribunal, in the order dated 1-2-2001 in OA No. 521 of 2000, after elaborately discussing the factual as well as the legal position, has come to the conclusion that the punishment of compulsory retirement is not outrageous or shocking to its conscience, it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the from stage one and direct disciplinary proceedings reinstatement of the respondent with back wages. 10

10. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him, since the employer has lost faith in this petitioner and in the banking, trust in bank employees is an essential ingredient without which the bank's business cannot run, and when the Bank Officials have lost their trust due to dishonesty, the Bank has no choice but to remove the erring Officer/Employee. 11. Looking to the fact that this petitioner was working as a Clerk under respondent-Bank and the nature of misconduct committed by him, and since the employer has lost faith in this petitioner and further looking to the proved misconducts, this petitioner is not befitting to continue as an employee of the respondents-Bank. The prestige of the respondents-Bank has also been seriously prejudiced by this petitioner. Hence, looking to the quantum of punishment of dismissal after evaluating the same with the nature of the misconduct, it cannot be said that the punishment inflicted upon this petitioner is shockingly disproportionate, nor the same can be labelled as unreasonably excessive. 12. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)