Devendra Singh Rana vs Circle Head, Disciplinary Authority, Punjab National Bank And Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing of impugned dismissal order dated 28.08.2017 passed by Circle Head, Disciplinary Authority, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Haridwar (respondent no.1 herein). A writ of mandamus has also been sought directing the respondent no.1 to release the pending salary of the petitioner in his favour.

Brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Peon-cum-Daftari in Punjab National Bank. When he was posted at Branch Office Bhaktowali, District Haridwar w.e.f. 20.03.2013 on said post he had prepared the voucher fraudulently on different dates and from different accounts and forged signature of account holders and has pocketed a sum of Rs. 2,73,000/- either in cash or transferring the same into his account. An F.I.R. was lodged by the Manager of the said Branch against the petitioner and he was handed over to the police on 31.08.2016. Thereafter in the month of January-2017, the police assaulted the petitioner and sent him to the Sub Jail Roorkee, District Haridwar. Thereafter, on 04.05.2017, charge sheet was handed over to the petitioner by the bank officials and clarification was sought from him on the charges levelled against him. It is further contended that the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. On 22.05.2017 an enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the respondent no.1 stating therein that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and he had committed a fraud by making forged signatures. Thereafter, on 10.08.2017, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner with regard to the charge sheet but he did not submit the reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter, on 08.03.2017 the Enquiry Officer fixed the date for enquiry, but the petitioner did not appear in the said enquiry. The petitioner was arrested, thereafter by the police and consequently, the enquiry officer has moved to the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee for necessary permission for recording the statement of the petitioner. The Jailer of the concerned jail was requested through letter dated 28.04.2017 to permit the enquiry officer to visit the jail for hearing in the enquiry. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 04.05.2017 and next date was fixed for 06.05.2017. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 06.05.2017. It is further contended that the Disciplinary Authority after going through the enquiry report was of the view that the charges against the petitioner stand proved under gross misconduct and Disciplinary Authority was of the further opinion that the ends of justice would be met by imposing penalty of dismissal from the service to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority had called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 25.08.2017, to show cause as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed upon him, but the petitioner did not appear before the Disciplinary Authority and consequently by the impugned order dated 28.08.2017 dismissal from the service to the petitioner has been passed. Hence, this writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating therein that while the petitioner was serving in Punjab National Bank, Haridwar he has fraudulently, on different dates, from different accounts by forged signature withdrawn the money in cash or some time by transferring the money into his account. The amount, so withdrawn and transferred was Rs. 2,73,000/- It is also stated that a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 23.12.2006. In the charge-sheet six charges were levelled against the petitioner. It has also been stated that the petitioner was asked to submit his reply but despite the charge-sheet been hand over to him, he did not file his reply. It is also stated that the petitioner was given ample opportunity of hearing by the Enquiry Officer and, as such the allegations that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing are not tenable. While filing the counter affidavit the respondents have taken a plea that at any point of time the petitioner had not asked for preliminary enquiry and the charges which were levelled against the petitioner were finally proved, therefore, the order impugned is sustainable and no violation of principle of natural justice has been done in the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not made any forged signature of any account holders and false allegations were levelled against the petitioner in respect of embezzlement of Rs. 2,73,000/-. He would further submit that the petitioner was posted as Peon-cum-Daftari in the Bank, where the computers are protected by passwords and without consent of the Cashier and Manager, the transaction from one account to another is not possible to anyone. He would further submit that the petitioner is less educated person, who is not well acquainted with the use of the computer mechanism, therefore, it is not possible for him to do the said forgery. He would further submit that the impugned dismissal order dated 28.08.2017 was passed by respondent no.1 without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the action of the respondent no.1 is against the principle of natural justice. He would further submit that as the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon-cum-Daftari in the Bank, therefore, it was not his duty to endorse the vouchers in the computer of the Bank. He would further submit that Branch-Bhaktowali was having a staff cadre of Manager, Officer, Cashier, Clerk, Security Guard as well as the peon and being the junior most employee of the Bank, he is not empowered to operate the bank record, therefore, totally false allegation were levelled against the petitioner.

Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 23.12.2016 with six charges as are enumerated in the charge sheet and petitioner was directed to submit his response/written statement but he did not submit any response to the charge sheet and hence the Bank has appointed the Manager, Branch Bhaktowali as Presenting Officer and Senior Branch Manager, Iqbalpur as Enquiry Officers. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer fixed 8.03.2017 for petitioner's appearance in the Punjab National Bank, Branch Iqbalpur, but he did not appear on that day, consequently, he was intimated about his absence on the date fixed and the Enquiry Officer has fixed next date on 16.03.2017 in P.N.B. Branch Iqbalpur. Meanwhile, the petitioner was arrested by the police and consequently, the Enquiry Officer has moved to the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee for necessary permission for recording the statement of the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee has granted permission vide order dated 26.04.2017. Thereafter, the Jailer of District Jail, Haridwar through his letter dated 28.04.2017 permitted the Enquiry Officer to visit the jail for the hearing in the enquiry. Thereafter, on 05.05.2017 the statement of the petitioner was recorded and after completion of the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 06.05.2017. He would further submit that the Disciplinary Authority after going through the enquiry report was of the view that the charges against the petitioner stand proved under gross misconduct and Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The Disciplinary Authority had called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 25.08.2017 to show-cause as to why the proposed punishment be not imposed upon him. The notice of proposed punishment was served upon the petitioner through Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Haridwar. The petitioner neither appeared before the Disciplinary Authority nor submitted the reply to the proposed punishment and consequently the proposed punishment was sustained by the Disciplinary Authority and the dismissal order was passed.

Perusal of the material available on record would reveal that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law after giving fullest opportunity to the petitioner and there is no infirmity in the same. Time to time notices were served to the petitioner and full opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him and, as such, there is no violation of principle of natural justice in the matter. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but he did not file his reply despite the opportunity been granted to him. The Inquiry Officer has recorded the statement of the petitioner while he was languishing in jail. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on bail and the proposed punishment order was served upon him but despite the service effected upon him, he did not file any reply to the punishment proposed by the authority concerned. Neither, the petitioner denied the averment made in the counter affidavit nor he has brought any material on record stating therein that the opportunity of hearing was not provided to him. Rather record would show that the opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner at every level but the petitioner did not chose to file his reply against the show cause notice and subsequently against the proposed punishment.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and others vs. S.N. Goyal reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 has held that the banking services are based on fiduciary relations and breach of fiduciary relations at the hand of any employee of bank should be dealt with iron hands. The relevant paragraph of the judgment (supra) is extracted hereunder:,;

"41. At the relevant point of time the respondent was functioning as a Branch Manager. A bank survives on trust of its clientele and constituents. The position of the Manager of a bank is a matter of great trust. The employees of the bank in particular the Manager are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the bank. Any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds of the bank or its customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. When a borrower makes any payment towards a loan, the Manager of the bank receiving such amount is required to credit it immediately to the borrower's account. If the matter is to be viewed lightly or leniently it will encourage other bank employees to indulge in such activities thereby undermining the entire banking. The request for reducing the punishment is misconceived and rejected."

While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court is reluctant to revaluate the evidence on record, which is against the petitioner. Further more, record reveals that petitioner was afforded due and proper opportunity of hearing during the course of enquiry. So far as the dismissal of the petitioner from the service is concerned, as the petitioner who was working in the Bank nad has embezzled a huge amount of Rs. 2,73,000/-, thus, the Bank has rightly awarded the said punishment to the petitioner. The trust of the Bank has been breached at the hands of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relaxation in the punishment so awarded. In exercise of writ jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has to see as to whether the procedure prescribed to conduct the inquiry is followed or not? In the present case there is no violation of principle of natural justice at the end of the enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, there is no infirmity, deficiency or fault in the decision of the authority concerned. No interference is therefore called for.

The writ petition is devoid of merit, and is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.