Anoop Tariyal vs State Bank of Patiala and Others

Valmiki J. Mehta, J—By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner questions the orders passed against him by the departmental authorities; Disciplinary Authority dated 28.3.2014 and the Appellate Authority dated 30.7.2014; imposing the punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. Petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 18.5.2013 containing five charges. The main charge against the petitioner was that he illegally debited the accounts of the customers and credited the accounts of his family members. Therefore, there were fraudulent and unauthorized withdrawals from the customers'' accounts. The relevant charges I to II in this regard read as under:-

"(I) Misutilization of customer''s debit authority given in good faith thereby tarnishing the image of the Bank in the eyes of public:

(i) You got blank debit slip signed from Smt. Ashama Khatun in good faith, holder of saving bank account No. 65143412226 on 14/07/2012 and misutilized her account by debiting Rs. 2000 from it and credited to the saving bank account No. 55140441720 of your son Sh. Ajay Tariyal under your ID. The vouchers'' of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

(ii) You again got blank debit slip signed from Smt. Ashama Khatun in good faith, holder of saving bank account No. 65143412226 on 17/07/2012 and misutilized her account by debiting Rs. 19500 from it and credited the saving bank account No. 65076539814 of your daughter Ms. Neha Tariyal under your ID. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

(iii) As per complaint dated 11.08.2012 by Sh. Aiub Mia, holder of saving bank account No. 65098807278, you made less cash payment by Rs. 61500 while making payment of cheque No. 352225 of Rs. 121500 tendered for payment on 24/07/2012 by Sh. Aiub Mia, thus misutilized his money.

(iv) You got blank debit slip signed from Sh. Aiub Mia in good faith, holder of saving bank account No. 65098807278 on 07/04/2012 by Rs. 10000 and credited the saving bank account No. 65076539814 of your daughter, Ms. Neha Tariyal, under your ID. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your hand-writing.

(v) You got blank debit slip signed from Sh. Aiub Mia in good faith, holder of saving bank account No. 65098807278 again on 14/06/2012 and mis-utilized his account by debiting Rs. 10000 from it and credited the saving bank account no-55140441720 of your son, Sh. Ajay Triyal under your ID. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your hand-writing.

(vi) You got blank debit slip signed from Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma in good faith, holder of saving bank account No. 65040421665 on 21/05/2012 and misutilized his account by debiting Rs. 10000 from it and credited the saving bank account No. 65076539814 of your daughter Ms. Neha Tariyal, under your ID. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

(II) Borrowing money from Bank''s customers in contravention of Bank''s norms:

(i) You borrowed Rs. 10000 from Sh. Rahul Kumar on 12/06/2012, holder of saving bank account No. 65073141852 and credited the saving bank account No. 55140441720 of your son, Sh. Ajay Tariyal under your ID in contravention of Bank''s norms. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

(ii) You borrowed Rs. 10000 from Sh. Surender Singh on 01/09/2011, holder of saving bank account No. 65037451528 and credited the saving bank account No. 65076539814 of your daughter, Ms. Neha Tariyal, under your ID in contravention of Bank''s norms. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

(iii) You borrowed Rs. 10000 from Sh. Harender Singh on 11/02/2012, holder of saving bank account No. 65107738477 and credited the saving bank account No. 65076539814 of your daughter, Ms. Neha Tariyal, under your ID in contravention of Bank''s norms.

(iv) You borrowed Rs. 5000/- from the current account No. 65049431030 of M/s. Techno Empire on 28/03/2012 and credited the saving bank account No. 65076539814 of your daughter, Ms. Neha Tariyal, under your ID in contravention of Bank''s norms. The vouchers of the transaction have been prepared in your handwriting.

(III) Fraudulent and Unauthorized withdrawal from customer''s accounts:

(i) You unauthorizedly debited saving bank account No. 65076539814 of your daughter, Ms. Neha Tariyal, on 19/07/2012 by Rs. 21500 and credited saving bank account No. 65143412226 of Smt. Ashama Khatun under your ID and with-out having any debit authority. The vouchers of the transaction has been prepared in your handwriting, it depicts that you have debited the account in order to refund amount earlier un-authorizedly debited from saving bank account No. 65143412226 of Smt. Ashama Khatun on 14/07/2012 and 17/07/2012.

(ii) You debited saving bank account No. 65046065790 of Ratnesh Kumar Prajapati by Rs. 200 by issuance of duplicate ATM card on 17/07/2012 and did not credit the amount to branch commission account. Also no duplicate ATM card was issued to the customer.

(iii) You debited saving bank account No. 65107443778 of Birender Pal by Rs. 200 for issuance of duplicate ATM card on 17/07/2012 and did not credit the amount to branch commission account. Also no duplicate ATM card was issued to the customer."

The other charges pertain to petitioner remaining un-authorizedly absent from duty for more than 30 days in the relevant period when these frauds were detected and failure to comply with the undertaking given earlier by the petitioner not to repeat any act of misconduct in future.

Departmental proceedings in this case were held as the petitioner/charged official denied the charges. The Enquiry Officer thereafter has given his report dated 12.11.2013 holding the petitioner guilty on the basis of depositions of witnesses of the respondent No. 1/Bank and the various documents filed by the respondent No. 1/Bank showing the unauthorized debits/withdrawals by the petitioner from the accounts of the customers.

The most important aspect to be noted is that whereas the Bank/department proved its case by depositions of two witnesses and filing of the relevant documents with respect to the illegal debits/withdrawals, petitioner/charged official did not even have the courage of conviction to step into the witness box to depose in his own favour. Since the petitioner did not depose in his own favour, obviously he feared the standing test of cross-examination which would have exposed him further. In law, issues before the departmental authorities are proved by preponderance of probabilities. Strict rules of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to departmental proceedings. Therefore, considering the evidence led by the respondent No. 1/Bank, and the fact that petitioner failed to lead any evidence, the departmental authorities were fully justified in arriving at the conclusion of guilt against the petitioner.

It may be noted that against the petitioner earlier departmental proceedings were held and in which petitioner was imposed the penalty of removal from service but his case was considered liberally and he was reinstated on his undertaking of not to repeat any misconduct in future. Petitioner is therefore clearly a person who is guilty of repeated misconduct during his services with the respondent No. 1/Bank.

The law with respect to scope of hearing before this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the orders of the departmental authorities is well settled. This Court does not sit as an appellate court to re-apprise the findings and conclusions arrived at by the departmental authorities once the departmental authorities take one possible and plausible view. This Court can only interfere if the findings of the departmental authorities are totally perverse or are against the law/rules of the employer. Two other reasons for interfering with the decisions of the departmental authorities are not following the principles of natural justice and punishment being disproportionate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that authors of all the complaints made to the respondent No. 1/Bank with respect to illegal debits/withdrawals from the accounts of the customers were not brought as witnesses by the respondent No. 1/Bank and the complaints were only proved by the officers of the respondent No. 1/Bank and this could not have been legally done.

This argument has no substance because not only the strict rules of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to departmental proceedings, but also nothing has been urged before me by the petitioner to show that the petitioner claimed in the departmental proceedings that the complaints made to the respondent No. 1/Bank contained forged signatures of the customers. In any case, since the issues before the departmental authorities are proved on preponderance of probabilities and the department has led evidence, whereas the petitioner did not lead any evidence and did not even step into the witness box for standing the test of cross-examination, the findings and conclusions of the departmental authorities therefore cannot be interfered with by this Court. As already stated above, petitioner is a repeat offender and earlier departmental proceedings were also held against the petitioner and in which after taking lenient view petitioner was reinstated in service but it appears that the petitioner is no wiser.

Counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Rajamanickam Vs. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department, The Director of Rural Development and The District Collector, (2011) 8 MLJ 225 to argue that in the present case documents being complaints made by the customers should be held to be not proved as authors were not summoned, however, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner does not help the petitioner because it has been now held by the Supreme Court that in departmental proceedings strict provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply. Also, the judgment in the case of S. Rajamanickam (supra) appears to be in the fact where sole evidence of the report of Director of Government Examination existed, whereas in the present case plethora of documentary evidence was filed and proved by the department to show illegal actions of the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner therefore does not help the petitioner.

The present is a fit case of petitioner being removed from service because banking services are based upon the complete confidence and trust of the customers. Employees of banks cannot make unauthorized entries and withdraw moneys from the accounts of the customers, and hope not to be subjected to departmental proceedings. Even earlier the petitioner was proceeded against and yet he continued with his misconduct. Obviously, petitioner seems to feel that he is above any discipline and that he can commit frauds and get away with the same. Dismissed.