2010 (7) TMI 1150 - SC - Indian Laws

Contempt petition for non-implementation - misappropriation the amount - Bank s Branch manager - the respondent was working as a Manager of the appellant s Branch. In a vigilance inspection it was found that some 20 loans to the tune of 16.48 lacs were disbursed to some persons against FDRs though the FDRs were in the names of altogether different persons. It was also seen that the withdrawals which were allowed were far in excess over the amounts in the FDRs. All those entries were in the hand-writing of the respondent.The High Court held that the documents produced were neither detailed nor their nature was explained. It further held that there was no discussion and much less any analysis of the evidence presented. The Court held that no specific finding has been recorded on the basis of the evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent. The absence of good reason was held to be in breach of the principles of natural justice. Therefore the order was set aside. The High Court directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent though for the limited purpose of holding the inquiry afresh. HELD THAT - There was a clear documentary evidence on record in the handwriting of the respondent which established his role in the withdrawal of huge amounts for fictitious persons. The ledger entries clearly showed that whereas the FDRs were in one name the withdrawals were shown in the name of altogether different persons and they were far in excess over the amounts of FDRs. The respondent had no explanation and therefore it had to be held that the respondent had misappropriated the amount. Inspite of a well reasoned order by the Inquiry Officer the High Court has interfered therein by calling the same as sketchy. The High Court has completely overlooked the role of the bank manager as expected by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. In these facts and circumstances we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The petition filed by the respondent in the High Court will stand dismissed. Consequently contempt proceedings initiated by him will also stand dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the departmental inquiry and the evidence presented.
2. Legality of the dismissal order and subsequent orders.
3. High Court's interference in the disciplinary proceedings.
4. Reinstatement and the direction for a fresh inquiry.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the departmental inquiry and the evidence presented:
The respondent, a Manager at Punjab & Sind Bank, was dismissed for misconduct after a departmental inquiry. The inquiry revealed that 20 loans amounting to Rs. 16.48 lacs were disbursed against FDRs in the names of different persons, with withdrawals exceeding the amounts in the FDRs. The respondent left the branch without handing over charge and was absconding. The inquiry officer found that the respondent sanctioned loans against non-existent FDRs, left the branch without authorization, and stood guarantor without permission. The inquiry officer concluded that the charges were proved based on documentary evidence and the respondent's handwriting on the entries. The respondent's defense was insufficient and unconvincing.

2. Legality of the dismissal order and subsequent orders:
The Zonal Manager, acting as the disciplinary authority, concurred with the inquiry officer's findings and dismissed the respondent for misconduct under the Punjab & Sind Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1981. The dismissal order was confirmed in an internal appeal and review. The High Court, however, set aside the dismissal, finding the inquiry report sketchy and lacking detailed reasons, which it deemed a breach of natural justice.

3. High Court's interference in the disciplinary proceedings:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for its handling of the material on record. It noted that the inquiry officer, though not a judicial officer, provided sufficient reasons for his conclusions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's role in judicial review of departmental disciplinary matters is limited and should not involve reappreciating evidence. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in holding the inquiry officer's findings as perverse and unsupported by evidence.

4. Reinstatement and the direction for a fresh inquiry:
The High Court directed the respondent's reinstatement for the limited purpose of holding a fresh inquiry, following the precedent set in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar. The Supreme Court, however, set aside this order, stating that the bank had established the misconduct with sufficient documentary evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no reason to interfere once the charges were found to be established.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's petition in the High Court. Consequently, the contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent were also dismissed. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of honesty and integrity for bank employees and upheld the disciplinary actions taken by the bank.

← Previous Next →