9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y debiting the SKCC head without the borrowers' knowledge. The allegation against him was that he made fictitious debits/releases under SKCC accounts and, in certain cases, exceeded the sanctioned limit. He dishonestly obtained additional withdrawals from certain customers by deceiving them. Another allegation is that he sanctioned a vehicle loan to a borrower, which was a Non-Performing Asset (in short, 'NPA'), in violation of the guidelines. In collusion with two other persons (Shri A Nagireddy and Shri M Ramakrishna), he fraudulently siphoned off Rs. 70,000/-. He misappropriated a sum of Rs. 9,000/- received by the branch under the debt waiver scheme to the SKCC account of one Shri D. Nagaraju. It was alleged that the respondent had committed many illegalities and irregularities, which tarnished the fair image of the Syndicate Bank. The statement of imputations was also served upon the respondent. 2. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted against the respondent. The inquiry officer submitted a report on 15th March, 2012. He held that the charges against the respondent were proved. After receiving a copy of the inquiry report, the respondent submitted a written response on 18t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. Relying upon a decision of this court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others (1995) 6 SCC 749, he urged that a writ court cannot go into the question of the adequacy of evidence adduced in the disciplinary proceedings. The question to be examined by the writ court is whether there was some evidence available against the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings. 6. Learned senior counsel submitted that branch managers of banks are expected to have higher standards of honesty and conduct. He relied upon a decision of this court in State Bank of India and Others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212. He submitted that the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case was of no relevance to the disciplinary inquiry. He relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Others (2005) 5 SCC 100. 7. He pointed out that 89 documents were produced in the disciplinary inquiry. Moreover, the respondent was granted inspection of the documents pertaining to the vigilance inquiry. The respondent cross-examined the officer who conducted a vigilance investigation. He submitted that out of the 6 tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Bank and Others (2009) 2 SCC 570. 11. Lastly, he submitted that the powers of the Disciplinary Authority must be exercised subject to principles of propriety and fair play. He placed reliance on another decision of this court in the case of Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and Others (2020) 9 SCC 471. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that this court should not interfere with the concurrent decisions of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court. OUR VIEW 12. We must note the respondent's version of the allegations against him, which is reflected in clauses (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 2 of the written submissions filed by the respondent: "(iii) That the Petitioners allege that the Respondent had fraudulently withdrawn and misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- from the following accounts: a. Sri G. Gopal (A/c. No. 454/06) - Rs. 25,000/- (Recovered on 22.02.2011) b. Smt. B. Sakamma (A/c No. 860/07 - Rs. 20,000/- (recovered on 19.02.2011) c. Sri D. Sreedhar (A/c. No. 952/06) - Rs. 35,000/- (Recovered on 19.02.2011) d. D. Sri M. Ramakrishna (A/c No. 1690/07) - Rs. 30,000/- (Recovered on 18.02.2011) (iv) Further, the excess amounts paid to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sheet dated 17th October, 2011 was served upon the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority (Assistant General Manager) submitted a report dated 15th March, 2012 holding that the charge against the respondent was proved. The respondent replied on 18th April, 2012. Ultimately, by order dated 03rd May, 2012, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from service. 15. We have carefully perused the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench in the impugned judgments. The High Court considered the following factors: i. Criminal case in the subject matter resulted in acquittal; ii. Inquiry was not fair; iii. There was no documentary evidence to arrive at a correct decision; and iv. The cashier and customers were not examined as witnesses in the departmental inquiry. Therefore, it was a case of no evidence. 16. It is well settled that an acquittal in a criminal case is no ground to exonerate a delinquent in disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof differs in these proceedings. It is well settled that the adequacy of the evidence adduced during disciplinary inquiry cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 364 : (1964) 1 LLJ 38], this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued." ( emphasis added ) 17. It is well settled that the Bank officers are expected to maintain a higher standard of honesty, integrity, and conduct. In paragraph 17 of the decision of this court in the case Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank & Another v. Munn Lal Jain (2005) 10 SCC 84 , it was held thus: "17. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the 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 Pat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered; d) As regards the allegation of excess claim amount paid to Shri Gopal and Smt. Sakamma, the credits were done due to the pressure of work. 20. Paragraph 4 of the letter dated 20th May, 2011 reads thus: "4. In respect of excess claim amount paid to Sri. Gopal and Smt. Sakamma, these credits were done in pressure of work due to wrong claims of crop insurance for Kharif 2006. The excess amount paid was recovered in full. Parties have given a letter to this effect stating that the same was withdrawn by them and repaid the amount. I request you to kindly condone the mistake as a special case as these mistakes have happened due to some pressure of work." ( underline supplied ) As far as allegation in respect of credit of Rs. 35,000/- to SKCC account of Shri Sreedhar is concerned, in paragraph 5 of the said reply, the respondent stated thus: "5. In respect of credit of Rs. 35000/- to SKCC 952/2006 of Sri. Sreedhar slip were prepared by me and sent to the concerned department for entering. Even OG 167 slip was also sent with one slip as enclosure. Missing of voucher was not brought to my notice while writing day book manually by the concerned clerk and supervisor at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill 11th June 2007. We have perused the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short "the Disciplinary Regulations"). Under Regulation 4, there is a provision for imposing minor penalties and major penalties. The respondent has already reached the age of superannuation. In our view, the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct established against the respondent and his unblemished career for a long time. However, fact remains that the misconduct alleged and proved against the respondent was of a serious nature considering the fact that a very high standard of conduct is expected from a branch manager of a Bank. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that a minor penalty, as provided in Regulation 4(e) of the Disciplinary Regulations, would be appropriate. The penalty will be of reducing the respondent to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. 25. The present appeal succeeds in part, and we pass the following orders: a) The impugned judgments and orders are quashed and set aside, and the finding recorded in the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
