2013 (3) TMI 291 - HC - Indian Laws

Removal from service - imputation against the petitioner was that he had claimed reimbursement, contrary to the Rules - he claimed bills for simultaneous treatment for overlapping periods under Allopathic and Ayurvedic medicines on four-five occasions - Held that - Petitioner had claimed medical reimbursement contrary to the rules as simultaneous treatment under different streams of medicines was taken by the petitioner and his family members. Moreover, he claimed simultaneous bills for Allopathic, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic treatment of his wife and children on 9-10 occasions. Dr. S.K. Gupta, Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Hertbertpur, Dehradun, who was the prosecution witness No. 4 in the enquiry, categorically stated that Ayurvedic medicines could not be taken simultaneously with Allopathic and Homeopathic treatment. The petitioner had been regularly claiming bills for some of the chronic diseases from 1982 to 1988. When he was asked to appear before the Medical Board, the petitioner deployed a clever ploy by first denying access to the Medical Board to get his family members medically examined and wriggled out himself of the tight corner by pleading no disease . The petitioner furnished a false information and claimed bills contrary to service rules for which penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him. The petitioner was working in a Nationalized Bank, where the required standard of integrity and honesty is very high. Therefore, the petitioner was expected to act and discharge his duties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Bank. Acting beyond one s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and trust and a misconduct. No interference with the decision of the respondent as it does not shock the conscience of this Court.

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the removal from service order dated 15.05.2010.
2. Proportionality of the punishment imposed.
3. Compliance with Conduct Rules and Service Rules.
4. Judicial review of administrative decisions.
5. Integrity and honesty standards in a nationalized bank.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Removal from Service Order:
The petitioner challenged the removal from service order dated 15.05.2010. Initially, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No. 4901/1993, which resulted in the court quashing all charges except Charges No. 3 and 4. The court directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the proportionality of the punishment. Charges 3 and 4 involved claiming reimbursement for simultaneous treatments under different medical disciplines and submitting numerous bills for non-existing diseases, which were deemed as fictitious and bogus. The Appellate Authority upheld the removal from service, citing the deliberate and planned nature of the petitioner's actions over a long period and multiple postings.

2. Proportionality of the Punishment:
The petitioner argued that the punishment was disproportionate. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, emphasizing that the High Court can modify punishment if it shocks judicial conscience. However, the court found that the petitioner's actions, involving false claims and misuse of medical facilities, justified the removal from service. The court cited precedents like Indian Railways Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar and State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak, which stress the importance of integrity and honesty, especially in positions of trust.

3. Compliance with Conduct Rules and Service Rules:
The petitioner was found to have breached Rule 32 (1) and Rule 32 (4) of the SBI (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, which mandate employees to discharge duties with utmost integrity, honesty, and diligence. The petitioner claimed reimbursement for simultaneous treatments under different medical disciplines, which was contrary to the rules. Witness testimony confirmed that Ayurvedic medicines could not be taken simultaneously with Allopathic and Homeopathic treatments, proving the petitioner's claims were false and contrary to service rules.

4. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions:
The court emphasized that its role in judicial review is limited to examining the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. The court referred to precedents like State of U.P. v. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava and Dr. N. Balakrishnan v. Nehru Memorial Museum & Library Society, which outline the limited scope of judicial review in departmental inquiries. The court found no infirmity in the decision-making process of the respondent authorities.

5. Integrity and Honesty Standards in a Nationalized Bank:
The petitioner, working in a nationalized bank, was expected to maintain high standards of integrity and honesty. The court cited cases like Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State Bank of India and Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, which highlight the importance of good conduct and discipline in banking roles. The petitioner's actions were deemed a breach of discipline and trust, justifying the penalty of removal from service.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding that the decision of the respondent did not shock the judicial conscience and was within the bounds of law and reasonableness. The petitioner's actions were a serious breach of trust and integrity, warranting the penalty imposed.

← Previous Next →