Mrs. Nirmal Duggal vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 05-04-1999, passed by Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi, whereby the Petitioner has been removed from the service. Also, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 01 -06-1999, passed by General Manager (Personnel) and communication dated 27-03-2000, passed by Chief Manager (Personnel) of the Respondent bank, whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the Petitioner and the review application against the order of punishment, are rejected.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, filed on behalf of the parties.

Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ Petitioner are that the Petitioner was appointed initially as a Clerk in the year 1972 with Respondent bank. Later she was selected and appointed as Manager in junior cadre of the bank. In the year 1992, she was further promoted to the post of Manager in Middle Management Grade-II. Petitioner''s case is that she had unblemished record. However, in the year 1998-99, while she was posted as Manager with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, branch Rajpur Road, Dehradun, certain discrepancies were detected relating to various residual amounts amounting to Rs. 78,991.75. When the Petitioner was called upon to explain the matter, she regretted the discrepancies and submitted her apology vide communication dated 08-01-1999 (copy annexure-1 to the writ petition). On 11-01-1999, the Petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental enquiry was initiated against her. When the Petitioner received notice of the departmental enquiry, she submitted representation dated 12-03-1999, accepting the discrepancy in the accounts. Consequently, the inquiry officer in his report dated 16-03-1999, held the Petitioner guilty of the charge. On receipt of notice dated 19-03-1999, issued by Deputy General Manager, Personnel, the Petitioner was required to submit her reply before the punishment is awarded to her. It is alleged by the Petitioner that before 15 days expired, on 05-04-1999, Deputy General Manager, Personnel, passed the punishment awarding penalty of removal to the Petitioner. On this, the Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal under Regulation 17 of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officers/Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982. However, said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 01-06-1999 by General Manager Personnel. Thereafter Petitioner filed review petition under Regulation 18 and the same was also rejected by Chief Manager, Personnel. Hence this writ petition. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that acknowledgement of discrepancies on the part of the Petitioner has wrongly been taken as plea of guilt. It is further pleaded that departmental inquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules and the person who conducted preliminary inquiry was appointed Inquiry Officer. As such, the inquiry is vitiated. The Petitioner was not given the material relied by the inquiry Officer to hold her guilty. Also, the appellate authority and reviewing authority have wrongly rejected the representation of the Petitioner.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, it is stated that finding of the fact, recorded in the departmental inquiry cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction by the court. It is further stated that bank officers are required to maintain high degree of integrity and discipline. It is further pleaded that once the bank has lost confidence of the employee, it cannot be compelled to retain him/her in service. On the facts, it is admitted in the counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner joined the bank as Clerk in the year 1972 and rose to the post of Manager, Middle Management Grade IInd. It is also admitted that in 1998-99, while the Petitioner was posted as Manager with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, certain discrepancies amounting to Rs. 78,991.75 were detected in respect of which the Petitioner admitted the misconduct on her part. It is further admitted in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental enquiry was initiated against her. It is specifically pleaded that when the Inquiry Officer intimated the Petitioner vide letter dated 05-03-1999, and fixed the date 12-03-1999 in the matter, the Petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and gave a representation admitting her guilt. As such, the Inquiry Officer had no option but to hold the charge proved against the Petitioner. As to the departmental appeal and the review application, it is further stated that the same were considered and rejected by the concerned authorities.

In the rejoinder affidavit, the Petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition.

On behalf of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, attention of this Court Is drawn to the case of State of Uttaranchal and Others Vs. Kharak Singh, , and it is argued that after the inquiry was initiated on report of an officer, then in all fairness, he should not have been appointed the Inquiry Officer. It is contended that if the same person is appointed as Inquiry Officer, the enquiry gets vitiated. We have considered the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Had the Petitioner denied the charge, it could have been said that prejudice is caused to him by appointing the same person as Inquiry Officer. But in the present case in clear words, the Petitioner has admitted her quilt not once but twice i.e. once before the departmental inquiry was initiated as is clear from communication dated 08-01-1999 (copy annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the second after initiation of the departmental inquiry, as is apparent from document dated 12-03-1999 (copy annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit). In communication dated 08-01-1999 (copy annexure-1 to the writ petition), addressed to Assistant General Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Officer, Dehradun, the Petitioner has submitted as under:

Dear Sir,

I hereby confess that I had committed some irregularities while working as Manager in 17, Rajpur Road, Dehradun branch involving a sum of Rs. 78991.75 (Rs. Seventy eight thousand Nine hundred Ninety One and Paise seventy five only) which I had already deposited. I also inform that no other amount is involved except the amount mentioned above and in case any other amount is detected at later stage I shall be held responsible for that also.

I also request you that keeping in view my past record, a lenient view may kindly be taken against me.

In reply to the query made by the Inquiry Officer, on 12-03-1999, the Petitioner has made following submission:

Sir, the charges levelled against me are acceptable to me. I had already confessed vide my letter dated 8-01-1999 and again voluntarily and without any pressure confess that I have committed these irregularities. I have also deposited the amount involved in the case (M-III IV)

Not only this, on further query, the Petitioner has made following statement on the same day (reference annexure-C.A.1 to the counter affidavit) as under:

Sir, I have voluntarily confessed my mistakes and accepted all charges levelled against me without any pressure and any undue influence.

The report of the Inquiry Officer further shows that the Petitioner did not want any further dates in the inquiry proceedings. In these circumstances, the plea raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner was not supplied any material on the basis of which charge stood proved, carries no force.

Shri S.N. Babulkar, Sr. Advocate, also referred case of Ran Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and argued that where an employee has confessed his or her guilt on the plea of bargaining, the major punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority cannot be upheld. We have gone through the facts and the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Ran Singh (Supra) and found that the facts of said case are distinguishable. In the present case before us, there is nothing on the record, which suggests that the bank authorities have ever orally or in writing promised to the Petitioner that lenient view would be taken against her if she pleads guilty. In the case referred on behalf of the Petitioner, the delinquent employee was awarded earlier lenient punishment on the plea of bargaining and later the punishment was revised and enhanced. Therefore, we are of the view that the above mentioned case of Ran Singh (Supra) does not help the present Petitioner for there is nothing on the record to suggest that the bank authorities ever either orally or in writing promised the Petitioner that lenient view would be taken if she pleads guilty.

It is also contended on behalf of the Petitioner that departmental appellate authority has not considered nor replied all the issues raised in the departmental appeal. We have gone through the impugned order of the departmental appellate authority. Since there was confessional statement of the Petitioner on the record, not only before the inquiry was initiated but also after the inquiry started, as such it cannot be said that the departmental authority has committed any error of law in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Petitioner.

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the punishment of removal, awarded by the bank authorities, is highly disproportionate to the misconduct found to have been proved on her part particularly in view of the fact that she has deposited the amount said to have been embezzled. In reply to this, learned Counsel for the Respondents drew attention of this Court to Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur Vs. State Bank of India and Another, in which it has been held by the Apex Court that where Manager of the bank has acted against the rules, mere fact that the loss was not caused to the bank, is of no consequence.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and the gravity of the charge, we do not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

For the reasons, as discussed above, we are of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed.