N. Nedunchezhian vs The Management of Canara Bank

S. Palanivelu, J.—Challenging the legality and propriety of the order passed in W.P. No. 6983 of 2000 dated 25.04.2000 rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court, this Appeal has been filed.

The present appellant was an officer Scale-1, in Kumbakonam Branch of the first respondent Bank and it was alleged that while he was working in Kumbakonam main branch between 27.06.1990 and 19.06.1996, he transferred a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the Saving Bank''s account No. 18784 of Mrs. P. Savithiri to his O.D. account without any authorisation from her. It is further stated that while the account holder, on 10.07.1996, came to the branch to withdraw a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from her account, she learnt that there were no sufficient funds in her account and that a sum of Rs. 5,000/-was debited from her account and immediately she brought it to the notice of the Manager. Thereafter, the first respondent authority nominated an officer to investigate the matter and the said investigation officer filed the investigation report on 24.09.1998, upon which charge was framed against the appellant, as above stated, describing the transaction as an unauthorised one and misconduct on his part.

The Enquiry Officer appointed by the first respondent bank held the Enquiry, by examining the account holder Mrs. P. Savithiri and concerned officials, who are connected with the transactions. After perusal of the statements adduced by the witnesses and the documents produced on their behalf, the enquiry officer came out with findings to the effect that the charge has been proved and the appellant herein had acted prejudicial to the interest of the bank, which is gross misconduct and that he acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer and acted without honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence.

The Enquiry Report was served upon the appellant and he submitted his representation on 27.10.1998 stating that he was duly and orally authorised by the account holder to transfer a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from her account to his O.D. account, that she has not chosen to prefer any complaint against him to the bank and the matter may positively be considered in his favour. On receipt of the above said representation, the Disciplinary Authority of the bank at Madurai, on 25.01.1999, passed the proceedings slapping the punishment of dismissal upon the appellant. Then, the delinquent Officer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority for setting aside the punishment of dismissal. But, the said appeal was rejected by the General Manager of the Bank viz., the appellate authority, resulting in filing the writ petition challenging the dismissal. Since the learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition, the delinquent officer has filed this appeal.

The contention of the appellant is that the learned single Judge has not considered the oral authorisation given by the account holder and that he has not appreciated the contentions of the appellant in a proper perspective.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents puts forth the plea that the learned single Judge has very well considered the documentary evidence put forth by both sides, particularly the alleged authorisation letter given by the account holder, who has categorically denied her signature therein. The propriety of findings of the Enquiry Officer has to be appreciated upon a careful analysis of factual conspectus of the case. The manner in which the enquiry officer approached the matter in issue, has necessitated this Court to re-appreciate the materials on record, inclusive of all the statements of witnesses before the Enquiry Officer.

The Account holder has categorically admitted during examination before Enquiry Officer that she orally permitted the appellant to transfer a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from her account. But, when she was confronted with a letter purportedly sent by her authorising the appellant to transfer the said amount was shown to here she denied the signature therein. Worthwhile it is to note that the account holder was produced by the management side and she was examined as management witness.

It is stated that on 10.07.1996, while Mrs. P. Savithiri came to withdraw amount from her account, she learnt that only a sum of Rs. 529/- was remaining as balance in her account. After comparing the admitted specimen signature found in the Account Opening Card of the said P. Savithri with the signature found in the authorisation letter, the Enquiry Officer has opined that it did not tally with the specimen signature. Even though he rejected the genuineness of the said authorisation letter, the Enquiry Officer ought to have accepted the unequivocal and candid admission made by the account holder that she orally permitted the delinquent officer to transfer a sum of Rs. 5,000/= from her account, since it is legally competent and definite.

Another telling circumstance in this matter is the withdrawal of Rs. 1200/- and Rs. 1,100/- on 29.11.1995 and 03.04.1996 respectively, which transactions occurred between 18.09.1995 and 10.09.1996 and on those occasions, TOD was permitted to honour the cheque, though sufficient balance was not there. If the account holder had a doubt with regard to the sufficiency of funds in her account, earlier than 10.07.1996, she should have informed the matter to the Manager concerned. Except the Enquiry Officer''s opinion that in order to honour the cheque from the account holder, the TOD had been permitted on those occasions even though the balance was not there. There is no testimony of concerned official in this regard. Hence it should be held that the account holder was already having knowledge about insufficient balance in her account even prior to 10.07.1996. It is also the inquiry report that the appellant credited the sum of Rs. 5,000/- along with interest into the account of the account holder.

Even a bare perusal of the records would show that the domestic enquiry itself is vitiated for the reason that even without calling for any explanation from the appellant, the respondent bank straightaway framed the charges. Further, no explanation or representation as to the charge has been required from the appellant after the charge. Resultant is violation of the principles of natural justice. On that account also, the enquiry conducted by the Bank suffers from illegality.

In this context, the learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this court to a decision of the Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Others, wherein it has been held as hereunder:

It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of course. The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the appellate authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court interfere. The power of judicial review available to the High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interefere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dectates of the superior authority.

The findings recorded in domestic enquiry can be characterised as perverse if it is shown that such findings are not supported by any evidence on record or are not based on the evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person could have come to those findings on the basis of that evidence. This principle was laid down by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sree Rama Rao, in which the question was whether the High Court under Article 226 could interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry. This decision was followed In Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Jain, and Bharat Iron Works Vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and Others, In Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour) and Others, . It was laid down that where the findings of misconduct are based on no legal evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could come, the findings can be rejected as perverse.

Following the principles laid down in the decisions aforestated, while the findings of the Enquiry Officer recorded in the Departmental enquiry proceedings are found to be perverse, the High Court is fully competent to interfere. There is no evidence to sustain the charges framed against the appellant officer in the proceedings. The Enquiry officer has omitted to furnish any findings with regard to the clear admission by the account holder.

In the case on hand, as adverted to supra, the Enquiry Officer has arrived at erroneous findings, resulting in miscarriage of justice. When such perverse and erroneous findings are recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which were acted upon by the Appellate Authority and the learned single Judge, as has been held in the above judgment itself, this Court can very well interfere with such perverse findings. The findings of the enquiry officer are not at all supported by any material which are far from acceptance and therefore the same are liable to be set aside.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 6983 of 2000 dated 25.04.2000 is set aside. The order of dismissal passed against the appellant dated 25.1.1999 is also set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant with full backwages and continuity of service within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.