High Court · 2025 on 15 May 2025

Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 31.03.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.2562 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant assailing the orders dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and 15.10.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority has been dismissed.

2. The appellant was appointed as Single Window Operator - A (SWO-A) and thereafter was working as Senior Clerk with the respondent-bank as a Class III employee. Allegations were made against the appellant for the period from 01.05.2019 to 10.06.2020, inter alia, pertaining to transfer/credit from the accounts of certain deceased persons to other accounts as well as misuse of Bancslink password of other employees of the bank.

3. On 01.07.2020, summarising all the allegations explanation was sought from the appellant. Response was given by the appellant on

14.07.2020, inter alia, claiming lack of adequate knowledge of Rules and Regulations of the bank and that he was following the directions of the senior bank officials. Another explanation memo dated 28.01.2021 was served upon the appellant and he was granted time to file reply, which it is claimed, was subsequently dropped. Article of charges/charge sheet dated 12.02.2021 was served on the appellant pertaining to fraudulent transactions in sundry creditors account and fraudulent transaction in some bank accounts, unauthorised transactions in deceased account, irregularity in electronic voucher verification and misuse of Bancslink password of other employees of the Branch.

4. The appellant filed response dated 08.03.2021 to the charge sheet purportedly alleging the same as baseless, however, accepting the same, whereafter repeating the plea pertaining to ignorance of Regulations, opportunity was sought to amend the mistakes committed. On response filed by the appellant, inquiry was ordered on 12.03.2021 by the Disciplinary Authority. Preliminary hearing by the Inquiry Officer was held on

02.06.2021, on which date the appellant accepted the charges, based on which, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry and required submissions of brief within seven days.

5. A written brief was presented on 08.06.2021, to which the appellant gave his response, based on which, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23.07.2021 to the Disciplinary Authority holding that the charges were duly established. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated 17.02.2022, after taking into consideration the response filed by the appellant, came to the conclusion that the unauthorised transactions aggregate to Rs. 4,39,195/- through sundry creditors account was declared as fraud by the bank and other charges were of grave nature and imposed ‘major penalty of removal from service, which shall not be disqualification for future employment’. It was also indicated that a subsequent charge sheet dated 12.01.2022 issued for acts of omission and commission during 03.05.2018 to 20.07.2019 was kept in abeyance with liberty to reopen the case, in case the situation warranted. 2

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 15.10.2022, after considering the pleas raised by the appellant, came to the conclusion that the appellant had acted in gross violation of bank’s guidelines. The act of compromising the reputation of the bank by misusing his official position was evident and the proved charges were serious in nature and consequently, dismissed the appeal.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed. Learned

Single Judge, after hearing the parties, noticed the grounds urged that the appellant was not aware of Regulations of the bank and that the respondents should have taken lenient view in the matter, the opposition to the said plea by the respondent bank and relying on judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and another Vs. Bela Bagchi and others : (2005) 7 SCC 435 and Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others Vs. P.C. Kakkar : (2003) 4 SCC 364, came to the conclusion that serious allegations were there against the appellant for defalcation of funds of the bank, full opportunity was given to the appellant and looking to the fact that the appellant, as bank employee, has misconducted, the punishment was not excessive, consequently, dismissed the writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that the departmental proceedings were conducted against the appellant in violation of provisions of Regulation 6(8) of the Indian Bank Officers, Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short ‘the Regulations, 1976’), as even after the liability was admitted by the appellant, a detailed inquiry was necessary. Further submissions were made that the respondents have failed to take into consideration the so 3 called admission of guilt by the appellant which was not an unqualified admission wherein he has indicated that he had merely been following the instructions of his senior officers and had not committed any wrong and, therefore, the entire action of the respondents stands vitiated and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

9. Further, apparently for the first time, in rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the bank in the present appeal, a purported response to the entire charge sheet has been attempted to be incorporated. It was submitted that the departmental inquiry is not an empty formality, it is a serious proceeding intended to give the officer concerned a chance to meet the charge and to prove his innocence and the admission alone is not sufficient. Reliance was placed on a judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Bharat : AIR 1961 SC 1070.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the admission of the appellant in response to the charge sheet and before the Inquiry Officer, was categorical admitting all the charges and once the charges have been admitted, which are of grave nature and the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have taken into consideration the plea raised by the appellant exhaustively, the stand, now sought to be taken by the appellant, cannot be countenanced. It was submitted that the Manual of Instructions in relation to Vigilance Administration of the Bank, 2018 under Clause 12.10 prescribes that if the charge sheeted officer pleads guilty of all the charges levelled against him, the Inquiring Authority shall rest the proceedings of the inquiry after recording the plea of guilt of the officer and submission of written brief by the Presenting Officer and the defence would 4 not arise in such case and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised has no substance. It was sought to be emphasised that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that the bank employees, who deal with the money of depositors and customers, are required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity and, therefore, no interference looking to the grave misconduct of the appellant is required. Reliance was placed in the case of P.C. Kakkar (supra) and Bela Bagchi (supra).

11. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

12. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant, from the very beginning, has constantly admitted the wrong doing, as alleged against him. Initially, in response to the explanation memo, the plea raised was that as he was having less knowledge of the Regulations, he had followed the oral and written orders of the higher authorities and in case he has committed any mistake, he was sorry for the same. In response to the article of charge/charge sheet, he though claimed that the charges were baseless, however, accepted the same and claimed that the amounts were transferred/credited in the accounts due to mistake and for lack of information, he may be provided an opportunity to rectify the mistakes. Before the Inquiry Officer, on the date fixed for preliminary hearing, the response of the appellant to the questions put by the Inquiry Officer were as under:- “EO to CO EQ-2 D;k mDr charge sheet esa yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks vkius vPNh rjg ls i<+ ,oa le> fy;k gS\ CO to EO th] gka] eS us vkjksiks dks i<+ ,oa le> fy;k gSA EO to CO D;k mDr charge sheet }kjk vki ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks vki iw.kZr;k Lohdkj djrs gSa\ EQ-3 5 CO to EO th gka] egksn;] eSa bu vkjksiksa dks Lohdkj djrk gwWaA”

13. The said response led to the subsequent proceedings wherein the Presenting Officer submitted his written brief, it was endorsed to the appellant as well, to which the appellant gave response and the Inquiry Officer gave his inquiry report exhaustively referring to the charge sheet, the conduct of inquiry and concluding that the appellant was guilty of the charges.

14. It is interesting to notice that the grounds raised in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, the first four grounds pertain to admission of the guilt, the fact that he has returned the amount of Rs. 4,39,195/- and indicating unconditional apology on part of the appellant, reads as under:- “A. Because, all the service period before 01.05.2019 is neat and clean and also after 10.06.2020 also neat and clean during 01.05.2019 to 10.06.2020 all irregularities happens by the petitioner for which the petitioner is guilty and prayed to the Hon’ble Court may kindly be to exonerate from above such type of irregularities have been committed by the petitioner. B. Because, it is relevant to point out here that this is the mercy petition the petitioner several time mentioned in the present writ petition that he will not repeat such type of alleged irregularities but the Opposite Parties have not taken heed and not given to the petitioner. C. Because, it is mention here that the petitioner excused by the reply/letters that he will not repeat in future the above said such type of irregularities which are has been done by the petitioner from 01.05.2019 to 10.06.2020, the petitioner accepted irregularities and excused for the same and also returned the alleged amount i.e. Rs. 4,39,195.00 but the authority concern has not been given any relief to the petitioner. D. Because, it is with respect submitted here that due lack of knowledge and processor of the work some mishappening/ irregularities has been done by the petitioner several times made conditional and unconditional apology but the authority concern not taken heed on the request of the petitioner.” 6

15. Further the very fact that the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 4,39,195/-, as has been noticed by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report (page 105 of the paper book) that the involved amount has been realised by the bank from the appellant, clearly reflects further admission on part of the appellant qua the allegations made in the charge sheet.

16. After having admitted the charges and essentially seeking mercy in the writ petition, in the present appeal, attempts have been made to retract from the admission/explain the same and/or seeking to respond to the charge sheet by way of rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the bank in the present appeal. The said attempt cannot be countenanced.

17. The plea raised pertaining to Regulation 6(8) of the Regulations, 1976 also apparently has no substance. Regulation 6(8), inter alia, reads as under:- (8) (a) The Inquiring Authority shall by notice in writing specify the day on which the officer employee shall appear in person before the Inquiring Authority. (b) On the date fixed by the Inquiring Authority, the officer employee shall appear before the Inquiring Authority at the time, place and date specified in the notice. (c) The Inquiring Authority shall ask the officer employee whether he pleads guilty or has any defense to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the Inquiring Authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the officer employee concerned thereon. (d) The Inquiring Authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the officer employee concerned pleads guilty.”

18. Clause (c) of Regulation 6(8) provides for the Inquiring Authority asking the employee whether he pleads guilty and if he pleads guilty, the Inquiring Authority is required to record the 7 plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the officer/employee concerned thereon. Clause (d) thereafter requires the Inquiring Authority to return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the officer/employee concerned pleads guilty.

19. A perusal of the inquiry report dated 23.07.2021 clearly reveals that the Inquiry Officer has analysed the P.O. brief, narration of the appellant and thereafter has dealt the imputations in question and returned the finding of guilt, which cannot be faulted/termed as being in violation of the Regulations, 1976.

20. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have also exhaustively dealt with the pleas sought to be raised by the appellant and have concurrently found the appellant guilty of the charges.

21. The law pertaining to the conduct of the bank employees and interference with the disciplinary proceedings/quantum of punishment stands settled by judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.C. Kakkar (supra) and Bela Bagchi (supra).

22. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

23. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 15.05.2025 SL (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) 8 SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench