Navin Kumar Sinha vs United Bank of india and Others

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.

In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.08.2005 passed by respondent No. 3 vide Reference No. PD/DIR/1151/4320/2005, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been reduced to a lower grade from MMG Scale II to JMG Scale-I i.e. fixing of basic pay in the corresponding stage in the Junior Management Scale-I but which, however, was subsequently modified by the order of the appellate authority dated 29.05.2006 and which is also under challenge in this writ application and by which the punishment of the petitioner was reduced to a lower grade from M.MG. Scale-II to J.M.G. Scale I i.e. fixing his Basic Pay in the last stage of the running Scale of Junior Management Grade Scale-I i.e. Rs. 19920/-.

The petitioner was posted as a Deputy Manager under Respondent No. 5 from 27.05.2003 to 11.06.2004 and by virtue of holding the post of Dy. Manager, the petitioner was also the joint custodian of the currency chest along with the head cashier. A theft was committed in the night of 9th June, 2004 by cutting the lock of the door of the grilled portion and after cutting the lock, it was opened and somebody entered into the grilled area and opened the Hinge of one box kept in the grilled area full of currency i.e. Rs. 100/- denomination and taken a sum of Rs. 20 lacs from that box, for which an FIR was instituted by the then Manager on 10.06.2004 (Annexure-3). After the incident, since the petitioner was the Deputy Manager, the competent authority initiated a departmental proceeding against him, in which the memo of articles had been served upon the petitioner vide Reference No. PD/DIR/07/1168/6696/2004 dated 9.12.2004 and the charges, which were leveled against the petitioner, were as follows:--

"During the tenure of your service as Deputy Manager of Bank''s Bokaro Steel City Branch from 27.05.2003 to 11.06.2004, you had failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge your duties with utmost devotion and diligence and acted in contravention of Regulations 3(1) and 3(4) read with Regulation 24 of United Bank of India Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 in that you being one of the joint custodians of currency chest of the Branch had committed the following irregular acts.

You had failed to remit the non-issuable note packets valuing Rs. 4,74,10,600/00 (Four Crore Seventy four lac ten thousand six hundred) only lying at the currency chest at the Branch.

You had on 10.04.2004, arbitrarily placed one requisition for Treasure for Rs. 15.50 Crore to the Patna Office of Reserve Bank of India without considering the then balance of treasure in the currency chest, average cash retention value of treasure at the chest, ascertaining the requirements of treasure in the near future and the average amount of inward and outward remittances which the said currency chest branch used to handle.

Later, you had received one inward diversion order dated 05.05.2004 from the Patna Office of Reserve Bank of India addressed to the Central Bank of India for Rs. 20 crores, you had failed to bring to the notice of the Manager of the Bokaro Steel City Branch as well as to the Reserve Bank of India that the Currency Chest of Bokaro Steel City Branch did not require such a substantial and unnecessary amount.

On receipt of the treasure for Rs. 20 Crores contained in 21 boxes from the Central Bank of India on 03.06.2004, you had taken steps for counting and keeping the chest treasure valuing Rs. 13.70 lac contained in 14 boxes. You, despite having note counting machine in the currency chest which could have been utilized for completion of counting of treasure in time, had kept the contents of the remaining 7 boxes uncounted outside the currency chest in an unsecured manner which were accommodated by the intervention of the High Officials on 10.06.2004. However, you had recorded receipt of Rs. 20 crores from the Central Bank of India although you did not count the contents in full.

You had concealed to the Manager of Bokaro Steel City Branch and the Manager of Central Bank of India that the representative of the Central Bank of India who was also holding the relevant keys of the said 7 boxes was not turning up to the Bokaro Steel City Branch during the period from 06.06.2004 to 09.06.2004.

You had concealed to the Manager of the Branch, Reserve Bank of India and the police authority that the required number and status of police personnel were not deployed at the currency chest and amidst the same, you had insecurely kept the aforesaid 7 boxes outside the currency chest.

Your such irregular acts had paved the way of theft of Rs. 20 Lac by breaking open box No. H-9 out of the seven boxes kept outside the currency chest.

The petitioner had submitted his reply to the Memo of Article on 27.12.2004 and thereafter a decision was taken to hold a departmental inquiry under Regulation 6 of United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 into the charges leveled against the petitioner vide office order dated 4.1.2005. The petitioner has submitted his defense argument before the Inquiry Officer on 26.05.2005 and after completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report, out of which some charges were not proved, some were party proved and some were fully proved. On receipt of the inquiry report, the petitioner had submitted his explanation and had prayed for exonerating him from the charges, which were alleged to have been proved against him. Considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner as well as the inquiry report, an order was passed on 16.08.2005 vide Reference No. PD/DIR/1151/4320/2005, whereby a major penalty in terms of Regulations 4(g) of United Bank of India Officer Employees'' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 was imposed upon the petitioner, which was of a reduction to a lower grade from MMG Scale II to JMG Scale I, i.e. fixing of basic pay in the corresponding stage in the Junior Management Scale I. The order dated 16.08.2005 was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority and an order was passed on 29.05.2006 by the appellate authority & Deputy General Manager (Priority Sector), wherein the order passed by the disciplinary authority was modified and the petitioner was inflicted with a punishment of reduction to a lower stage from MMG Scale-II to JMG Scale-I i.e. fixing his basic pay in the last stage of the running scale of Junior Management Grade Scale-I i.e. Rs. 19920/- and the said penalty was to come into effect from 16.08.2005.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary authority did not consider the fact that the Reserve Bank of India through Central Bank of India had sent reminders of lower denomination of currency, which was required to be kept in currency chest and since currency chest was itself full, the petitioner was forced to keep the excess denomination outside the currency chest. However, the same was within the grilled premises since the petitioner did not have any option to keep the excess currency within the precincts of the currency chest. The said fact was not properly considered either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was working in the capacity of a Deputy Manager, whereas the Manager was over all incharge of the bank and it was the duty of the Manager to deploy sufficient personnel so that the currency chest as well as grilled premises are properly secured and are guarded. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that on the date of incident, sufficient police personnels were not present and this fact was entirely on account of negligence on the part of the Manager of the Bank. It has also been submitted that the Manager of the Bank had given a receipt of the currency notes valued of Rs. 20 lakhs and therefore the Manager of the Bank cannot escape the liability if at all and, therefore, in such circumstances, the Manager should have been held responsible for dereliction of duty as it was solely the duty of the Manager being the overall incharge of the Bank. It has also been submitted that the letters dated 25.06.2003, 20.08.2003 and 28.08.2003 to the higher authority, R.B.I. would reveal that the petitioner had taken steps for removal of non-issuable notes during the period July, 2003 to 3.6.2004 and in such circumstances on the said charge, the petitioner cannot be held responsible.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that some of the charges against the petitioner have been proved in course of inquiry proceeding and these have been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 16.08.2005 by the disciplinary authority. It has further been submitted that the appellate authority had taken a lenient view of the matter and had subsequently modified the order of the disciplinary authority with respect to the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the negligence on the part of the petitioner is apparent from the fact that even though there was sufficient space in the currency chest, the petitioner committed dereliction of duty by keeping 7 boxes outside the currency chest and, therefore, in such circumstances, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was proportionate to the grave charges leveled against him. It has also been submitted that so far remittance of excess non issuable notes is concerned, the appellate authority had taken into consideration such aspect by referring to the letters of communications made by the petitioner to the officers of Reserve Bank of India allowing him to remit non issuable notes. In such circumstances, therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no infirmity or illegality has been committed either by disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority for imposing penalty upon the petitioner.

The Inquiry report reveals that some of the charges against the petitioner were not proved, some were proved and some were partly proved. The disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order dated 16.08.2005 had noted in details the submission of the petitioner and dealt with each and every aspect of the matter in a proper manner. However, the disciplinary authority did not consider the submission of the petitioner with respect to the fact that there are several letters and circulars issued by the Government Transaction Department for disposal of non issuable notes by remittance to the same to Reserve Bank of India but the petitioner in his capacity of Deputy Manager did not follow the bank circulars and merely by sending letters and reminders, the petitioner cannot shirk from his liability. However, the finding of the disciplinary authority has been properly dealt with by the appellate authority inasmuch as the petitioner had made several communications with Reserve Bank of India to allow remittance of non issuable notes. It further appears that the petitioner had placed indents to Reserve Bank of India for providing treasure of higher denomination notes while in the diversion order treasure of lower denomination notes were remitted which were very voluminous, resulting in keeping the excess notes outside the currency chest area. The appellate authority as well as the disciplinary authority had taken into consideration the fact that the investigating team had detected that there were vacant spaces inside the currency chest and the petitioner could have put the 7 boxes filled with currency notes inside the currency chest instead of keeping them outside the said area, which resulted in the unfortunate incident on 9th of June, 2004. Such action/inaction on the part of the petitioner, which has consistently been proved in course of inquiry as well as reflected in the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, speaks of the negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner and in such circumstances, the order of punishment imposed by the appellate authority & Deputy General Manager (Priority Sector) dated 29.05.2006 is in commensuration with the charge leveled against the petitioner.

Since the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have considered the entire aspects of the matter and dealt with each and every submission of the petitioner and had properly appreciated the inquiry report while coming to the conclusion holding the petitioner liable for a major penalty, this writ application being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.