N.K. Singhal vs Syndicate Bank

P.K. Bhasin, J.—The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the Respondent bank dismissing him from service for his having committed serious act of misconduct.

The Petitioner joined the Respondent bank as a Clerk on 18.8.73 and in due course was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager on 03/06/85. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 01/07/92 by the Respondent and in the charge-sheet it was stated as under:

CHARGE No. 1

That you have been functioning as Asst. Manager at our Chandni Chowk Branch since 12.7.91. That while functioning in your position, as such, you were incharge of Branch adjustment, CDD and OBC departments.

That while functioning in your position as such, you falsified branch records by making fictitious debit and credit entries under Branch Adjustment account, SB A/c No. 19688 of Smt. Shakunthala Devi, Joint SB A/c No. 19500 in your name along with your wife Smt. Daya Singhal and in CDD ledger

(a) Under Branch Adjustment Account:

Dr. IBA No./date Drawn on Amount (i.) 701261/24.1.92 Meerut (no branch) Rs.20,000.00 (ii) 701265/28.1.92 name specified FD 292363/91 Rs.30,000.00

&FD 292364/91 paid at Meerut Br.PM. Road Rs. 20,000.00

(iii) 701273/30.1.92 Bombay-reliance Rs.15,000.00 Inds. Warrant

-------------------- Rs.85,000.00 --------------------

**FD no.292352/81 (b) Under CDD A/c Particulars Amount CDD no./date (i)CDD/MD/52 dt. DD no.89962 of Rs. 37,500.00 29.7.91 union bank

(ii)CDD/104 dt. LIC,Meerut Rs.25.000.00 10.9.91

AND

Proceeds of these fictitious entries were credited to SB a/c No. 19688 of Smt. Shakuntala Devi and SB a/c no, 19500 of yourself with your wife Smt. Daya Singhal respectively.

AND

various other irregularities as more fully described in the statement of imputation of misconduct, are mentioned here below. by your above acts ,you have contravened regulation No. 3 (1) read with regulation No. 24 of syndicate bank officer employee s (conduct) regulation 1976.

CHARGE No. 2

That while functioning in your position as above , you opened or caused to open a current a/c No. 4261 on 28.1.92 in the name of M/S syndicate bank staff investment funds without approval /consent/ acknowledge of competent authority.

AND

without submitting required form for opening the a/c and also obtained a cheque book in re4spect of said current a/c

AND

committed various other irregularities as more fully described IN the statement of imputation of misconduct, are mentioned here below.

By your above acts, you have contravened regulation No. 3 (1) read with regulation No. 24 of syndicate bank officer employee s (conduct) regulation 1976."

The Petitioner in his reply dated 14-07-92 to the charge-sheet had admitted the allegations leveled against him but despite that the Respondent decided to hold a regular enquiry against him and an enquiry officer was appointed by the Respondent bank. On 28th August, 1992 the enquiry proceedings were started at the outset, the Petitioner was explained the charges against him and when asked by the enquiry officer as to what he had to say about those charges the Petitioner pleaded guilty and requested the enquiry officer for taking a lenient view in the matter assuring that he will not repeat the irregularities in future. The Petitioner also submitted before the enquiry officer a letter dated 28/08/92 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority admitting that he had committed the charged acts and requested the Disciplinary Authority also to take a lenient view. The Enquiry proceedings, copies of which have been placed on record by the Petitioner himself, show that that even though the Petitioner had admitted the charges leveled against him the management''s representative had stated that he was ready with all the documentary and oral evidence for establishing the charges leveled against the Petitioner. The documents produced were then taken on record and the Petitioner was asked by the enquiry officer to go through those documents for verification and he was also supplied the photocopies of those documents. The Petitioner after going through all the documents again stated that he was not wanting any enquiry since he was admitting the charges. Thereafter the enquiry proceedings were closed and the enquiry officer gave his report holding the Petitioner guilty on that date itself. Against the findings of the Enquiry Officer the Petitioner was then given an opportunity to make a representation which he did and in his representation also he accepted his guilt but offered an explanation that the irregularities committed by him were because of his suffering from hypertension and hypermania from 1974 in view of serious injuries sustained by his brother in some communal riots which took place in Saharanpur.

On 26.10.92 an order dismissing the Petitioner from service was passed by the Deputy General Manager. On 24.11.92 a departmental appeal to the General Manager was filed by the Petitioner.

In his appeal, also he submitted that he had accepted all the charges leveled against him and had also reimbursed all the money of the bank and apologized for his misconduct. The appeal was however dismissed by the Appellate Authority while appreciating the uprightness of the Appellant (Petitioner) in admitting the charges.

On 09.02.93, a review petition was filed by the Petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority and the same was also rejected by the Reviewing Authority on 28.9.93.

On 1.3.95, the Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 before this Hon''ble Court challenging his dismissal from service but it was withdrawn on 25.9.96 and liberty to file a fresh petition was given to him by the Court in case necessity arose. Then after three years the present petition was filed by the Petitioner.

In the present writ petition the Petitioner claimed that the very issuance of charge-sheet was vitiated since in the charge-sheet itself it had been stated that the Petitioner had misused his official position and had acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer which showed that at that stage itself the Disciplinary Authority had already made up its mind about the guilt of the Petitioner and that was further evident from the fact that in the charge-sheet the Petitioner had also been asked to show cause as to why an appropriate punishment be not imposed upon him. Regarding the enquiry proceedings, the Petitioner claimed that it was simply an eye-wash since the enquiry had commenced at 11.00 a.m. and was concluded on the first day itself within an hour which showed that even the enquiry officer was in a hurry to give a report against the Petitioner. It was also claimed that the letter dated 28th August, 1992 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority by the Petitioner was procured from him by the Enquiry Officer on the assurance that a lenient view shall be taken. It was claimed that the management of the bank was in a dominating position and using that position it had succeeded in procuring admission of guilt from the Petitioner by assuring him that he shall be dealt with leniently but subsequently the authorities had not honoured that assurance. Another plea raised in the petition was that the bank had condoned similar kind of lapses committed by other employees and had taken a lenient view in their cases but in the case of the Petitioner extreme and harsh punishment of dismissal from service was imposed.

All the aforesaid contentions raised in the writ petition were reiterated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner during the course of hearing of the writ petition. Strong reliance was placed on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in "Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr.", AIR 1986 SC 157 in support of the submission that since the management of the bank was in a dominating position admission of guilt could easily be procured from the Petitioner and therefore, that admission alone was not sufficient to hold him guilty in the enquiry and enquiry officer should have proceeded ahead to conduct the enquiry on merits by calling upon the management to adduce necessary evidence in support of the charges leveled against the Petitioner. Learned Counsel also cited some judgments in support of his submission that the language used in the charge-sheet being suggestive of the fact that the Disciplinary Authority had already come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty, the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner was liable to be set aside by this Court. In the end, learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that since the Petitioner had voluntarily paid back the money to the bank which he had allegedly misappropriated by falsifying bank records this Court should at least take a lenient view on the point of punishment and the punishment of dismissal from service deserved to be substituted by a lesser punishment.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent bank while opposing the petition submitted that since the Petitioner had all along been admitting his guilt and he having not placed on record any material to show that he was induced into admitting his guilt this writ petition, which in any event was filed belatedly even after withdrawal of the earlier writ petition, deserved to be dismissed. Learned Counsel submitted that the management of the bank had the best evidence against the Petitioner in the form of his own admission of guilt not only in the enquiry proceedings but even in the reply to the charge-sheet. It was also argued that before the filing of the present writ petition the Petitioner had not claimed either before the Disciplinary Authority or before the Appellate Authority and not even before the Reviewing Authority that he had been induced into admitting his guilt and therefore, the plea raised in the present writ petition in that regard was an afterthought. Regarding the plea of the Petitioner that the bank''s money having been paid back by him lenient view should be taken the learned Counsel submitted, relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another Vs. Munna Lal Jain, , that that was no reason to take a lenient view since serious acts of bungling amounting to serious crime were committed by the Petitioner.

After having considered the pleading of the parties and the submissions made at the bar and also having perused the enquiry record I have no manner of doubt that this writ petition is absolutely devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The plea raised by the Petitioner that he had admitted his guilt only on the assurance that he shall be dealt with leniently is clearly an afterthought and not only that the Petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate the same. He has not even named anyone who had given him the assurance that in case he would admit the charges he would be dealt with leniently in the matter of imposition of punishment upon him. Nowhere had he earlier claimed so which shows that he had not made the admission of guilt because of any such assurance which he claims to have been given to him on behalf of the Respondent bank. In his various representations and communications with the bank authorities he had been simply claiming that because of certain tensions in his mind he had committed the financial irregularities. In view of the fact that the Petitioner himself had taken the decision not to have an enquiry conducted against him no fault can be found with the decision of the enquiry officer in concluding the enquiry proceedings on the first day itself when the enquiry had started. No allegation had been leveled by him in his appeal that the letter dated 28th August, 1992, in which also he had admitted his guilt, had been procured from him by the enquiry officer on the assurance that his case shall be dealt with leniently. Therefore, this allegation against the enquiry officer also cannot be accepted.

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.