AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.V. Maruthi, J.—This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 14-5-1996 and the proceedings dated 24-6-1996 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
The facts in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-cashier on 6-6-1983 in the first respondent-organisation. He was promoted as Branch Manager and posted at Raipole Branch, Medak District on 9-8-1993. While so, on 5-4-1995, the first respondent issued a memo placing the petitioner under suspension on the allegation that a central card belonging to a customer of Yeldurthy Branch was found missing during the transit of the registered cover. The Central Office, Bombay-3rd respondent sent a credit card belonging to customer of Yeldurthy Branch in a registered postal cover by mistake to the petitioners Branch at Rayapur instead of sending it to the Yeldurthy Branch on 22-1-1994. On noticing that the cover was belonging to the Yeldurthy Branch, the entire cover was redirected and despatched in Registered No. 142 to that Branch and it was received by the Branch Manager, Yeldurthy on 27-1-1994. Thereafter the credit cards were handled by the said Branch. Till 5-4-1995 on which date the order suspending the petitioner was made nothing happened. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged with the police in F.I.R. 15 of 1995 before the Yeldurthy Police Station stating that the card was misutilised either by the Raipole Branch Manager or Yeldurthy Branch Manager or by unknown persons during the first quarter in the year 1994. Pending investigation by the police, the first respondent initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, he filed a Writ Petition No. 7655 of 1995 challenging the order of suspension and the same is pending. Pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated, charges were framed against the petitioner on 4-9-1995 and departmental enquiry was conducted. After following the procedure, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 9-3-1996. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges and dismissed the petitioner from service. The disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the Enquiry Report and after following the procedure contemplated under the Rules, accepted the Enquiry Officer''s Report. On appeal, the said order was confirmed. Aggrieved by the orders of the dismissal the present writ petition is filed.
The main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the enquiry conducted is defective as the cards were sent to Yeldurthy Branch and they were in the custody of the Yeldurthy Branch Manager and no enquiry is initiated against him. The F.I.R. was lodged at Yeldurthy Police Station and no action is taken against the employees at Yeldurthy Branch. The Central Card Department, Bombay and other concerned suspicious employees were not examined and no action is initiated against them. Though the cards were received in the Raipole Branch, they were despatched to the Yeldurthy Branch and three agencies were involved viz., the employees at Raipole Branch, postal employees and employees at Yeldurthy Branch. The misutilisation of the card can be by any one of these employees and he cannot be held responsible in the absence of evidence against him. It is also further submitted that he wanted to examine the staff at Central Office, Bombay but no opportunity was given to examine the staff at Bombay. The relevant documents were not furnished. The non-examination of postal staff, non-examination of employees at Central Office, non-examination of officers at Yeldurthy Branch vitiated the enquiry. The Counsel also submitted that the complainant viz., the holder of the master card was also not examined. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not say that the enquiry is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. There cannot be such an argument as a procedure has been complied with while holding the enquiry against the petitioner.
The argument of the learned Counsel is on merits. It is now well settled that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in judgment over the enquiry officer''s report or the findings of the disciplinary authority on merits unless the Enquiry Officer''s Report is perverse or the findings are based on no evidence.
The charges framed against the petitioner are (1) Mr. K. Krupakar, while working as Branch Manager of Raipole Branch has fraudulently utilised for his pecuniary gains, the central card of a customer of Yeldurthy Branch by removing one from the central cards meant for Yeldurthy Branch which were wrongly sent to Raipole Branch by Central Card Department. (2) On 24-3-95, when the Police brought Mr. Krupakar to Regional Office, during the process of investigation, he fled away from police custody and thereafter he absconded from duties which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer.
The statement of imputation of misconduct reads as follows: Raipole Branch in the month of January, 1994 received a registered cover despatched by the Central Card Department, Bombay in the last week of December, 1993 containing five central cards of Yeldurthy Branch, the details of which are as follows:
Card Holder''s Name Card. No. Ramesh Chandra, K. 5414 4500 0713 3213 Singthem Siddanna 5414 4500 0713 3114 Satyanarayana Prasad M. 5414 4500 0713 3312 Kesanna Ramesh Babu 5414 4500 0717 9415 Chepur Vijaya Bhaskar Rao 5414 4500 0715 2115
Mr. Krupakar opened the registered cover received by him from Central Card Department, After opening the cover, Mr. Krupakar has failed to record the contents in the Inward Dak Register. The card (sic. cover) which was received in the first week of January, 1994 was deliberately withheld at Raipole Branch for a fortnight and despatched to Yeldurthy Branch on 24-1-1994 by Registered Post No. 142. Before despatching the cover to Yeldurthy Branch, Mr. Krupakar removed one central card bearing No. 5414 4500 2115 of Mr. Chepuri Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, a customer of Yeldurthy Branch. In order to conceal his act, while despatching the cards to Yeldurthy Branch, he has retained the covering letter of Central Card Department with him, as a result of which the Yeldurthy Branch could not ascertain correctly the number of cards sent to them by the Central Card Department. Having confiscated the card by fraudulent means, Mr. Krupakar misutilised the card extensively in the following member establishments at Hyderabad to the tune of Rs. 35,089.50 ps. between 1-4-1994 to 5-4-1994 for his pecuniary gain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Date Amount Member Establishment Rs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Lakshmi Jewelleries 1-4-1994 2600.00 Lakshmi Jewelleries 5-4-1994 1124.00 Lakshmi Jewelleries 5-4-1994 2054.00 Ghan Shyamdas Jewellers 1-4-1994 2500.00 Ghan Shyamdas Jewellers 2-4-1994 2550.00 Ghan Shyamdas Jewellers 5-4-1994 2475.00 Timestyle 1-4-1994 2445.00 Vaibav 1-4-1994 1200.00 Sumangal (Arihant) 5-4-1994 2520.00 Little ''Smile'' 5-4-1994 1578.00 Golden Deer Restaurant 4-4-1994 485.00 Raj Rajeswari Distributors 1-4-1994 1301.00 M.S. Vaibhav 1-4-1994 2877.00 Ding Dong Footwear 1-4-1994 1277.00 Zavari Jewellers 5-4-1994 2350.00 Jawahar Jewellers 5-4-1994 2380.00 Kishinchand & Sons 1-4-1994 2045.25 Kamal Watch Co. 4-4-1994 1610.00 --------- Total 35089.50 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
When the fraud came to light, Mr. Krupakar, in order to conceal his misdeeds, hurriedly purchased two demand drafts worth Rs. 39,000/- favouring CBI Account, Central Card, Bombay from State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry Branch towards the amount misutilised by him and gave a telegram from Sangareddy in Medak District stating that the amount has been paid and the complaint may be withdrawn. The actual cardholder Mr. C.V. Bhaskar Rao vide his letter dated 24-1-1995 has denied having received the card and utilised the Central card meant for a customer Mr. C.V. Bhaskar Rao, by impersonating him and forging his signature.
On the basis of the statement, the Enquiry Officer has examined five witnesses on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner produced 15 defence exhibits and he defended himself. On the basis of the evidence, the Enquiry Officer found that "Mr. C.V. Bhaskar Rao, the actual card holder did not receive the renewal card due to him. The said card was extensively utilised fraudulently between first April, 1994 to fifth April, 1994. Raipole Branch has originally received the said card along with four other cards. The cover was redirected by the Raipole Branch to the Yeldurthy Branch. Yeldurthy branch received only four cards that too without covering letter and did not receive the card pertaining to Sri C.V. Bhaskar Rao. The said card was stolen from the cover sent by Central Card Department at Raipole Branch only. The card was utilised at Hyderabad and the repayments were made by the culprit from Hyderabad and a telegram was sent from Sangareddy." On a consideration of the evidence, he also found that the Raipole Branch being a small rural branch, the charged Officer had not observed the rules of the Bank and the records are being at his disposal (as he is the Branch Manager and the only Officer), he manipulated the same to suit his convenience. He also found that the charged Officer was in Hyderabad between 1st April, 1994 to 5th April, 1994 and misutilised the central card. In support of his finding, he observed that 1st April, 1994 was a holiday, 2nd April was annual closing day and no transactions took place. On 4-4-1994 the CSO was in Hyderabad (ME.12) reached Gadwal at 10.30 p.m. But he has signed the DTB and cash memorandum for 4-4-1994 also (vide ME.39). He observed that "After the use of the card the bill would be sent to the cardholder and the fraudulent use of the card would come out. It happened in May, 1994 (ME-2&3) and enquiries commenced by the cardholder................At that time there was only one alternative left i.e, remit the amount on the basis of chargeslips and send a communication to the authorities concerned to that effect."
He observed that "the Management produced M.E.13 (DDs), M.E. 14 (telegram copy), M.E. 15 (a letter of the customer having denied any payment made by Secunderabad branch), M.E. 18 (ledger extract of the CSO''s HSS Account with Secunderabad branch), M.E. 17 (ledger extract with Rain Bazar of the HSS Account of the SCO). While the CSO produced DD application copies DE 14 and 15, the DDs and the telegram to the Central Card Department were not sent by the actual customer for the reasons already mentioned above (the signature, the surname and the address do not match with the actual). The CSO claimed ''alibi''. Except that he admitted having withdrawn Rs. l7,500/- from Secunderabad branch on 19-l-1995. The DDs were purchased on 20th January, 1995 at State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. The CSO states that he was with the Auditor at Raipole on 20-1-1995 and was fully busy..........I can safely infer that the CSO must have reached Raipole before close of office hours on that day (20-1-95) and signed the DTB." The Enquiry Officer also referred to panchanama, ME. 24 which was attested by the two signatories (panchas) MW.4 and MW.5 confirming the contents of the panchanama and the other evidence. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. He relied on the evidence of MW.4 and MW.5 who confirmed the contents of panchanama. It is interesting to refer to the evidence of M.W. 4. He says to Question No. 144 "Did the police confiscate any item from that house? He says two pairs of children shoes were confiscated from that house." He says to Question No. 140 "Did Mr. Krupakar admitted that he has stolen the card and misutilised ? Yes he admitted."
The Enquiry Officer while holding the petitioner guilty, referred to the evidence against him and considered the matter at length in a well considered report supported by reasons and evidence.
As pointed out in the earlier paragraphs, the scope of enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter like this is limited. Since I am of the view that the Report of the Enquiry Officer which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, does not suffer from any infirmity, I do not see any reason to entertain (sic. interfere) with the impugned order.
In the context of this case, it is necessary to refer to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab 1996 (7) Supreme 405 which held as follows:
"Authority referred to confession made by appellant in murder case that he was having links with terrorist - Rules of evidence where by such confession before police was inadmissible do not apply to departmental enquiries - Only test in such enquiry is compliance of principles of natural justice - Though appellant had been acquitted in criminal case, nothing on record not to accept finding of authority and the High Court - There were no allegations of mala fide against appellate authority - No ground to take different view and to interfere with order of dismissal".
The decision of this judgment clearly applies to the petitioners to the facts of the present case.
The writ petition does not merit consideration and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.