P.Rajesh vs State Bank Of India And Others

Mohammed Nias. C.P.,J

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the third respondent dismissing him from service. The appeal filed against the same was also rejected. Earlier the petitioner, appointed on compassionate grounds on the death of his father, was working as Assistant Manager of the Elathoor Branch of the first respondent Bank. The petitioner alleges that one Thresiamma, working in the same branch and a close family friend of the petitioner's family requested for a loan of Rs.15,25,000/- from him and when the petitioner demanded repayment, she started making small payments by cash and also by way of transfer to the account of the petitioner. It is only later that the petitioner came to know that she was making this payment by illegally withdrawing the amounts from the dormant account of the customers of the bank. He further alleges that he had reported about the same to the Branch Manager and that he was issued with Ext.P1 show cause notice, to which Ext.P2 reply was served. Not satisfied with the reply, a charge memo was issued, Ext.P3, charges of which were denied by the petitioner by Ext.P4 representation. After the enquiry, it was found that the charges were proved. The petitioner also had submitted a representation against the enquiry report. Finally, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the third respondent by order dated 28.4.2011. The appeal submitted as Ext.P10 was also rejected by Ext.P11 order. These orders are challenged in the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.R.Hariraj submits that he had clearly pointed out right at the outset that it was Thresiamma who was drawing amounts illegally and crediting them amounts to his account and if a proper enquiry is conducted with reference to the ID, the said fact will be revealed. It is his case that he is totally innocent of the charges levelled and all these are the handy work of Thresiamma. He also submits that in the criminal case filed against him on similar allegations, he was acquitted in appeal by Ext.P12 judgment, wherein, there is a finding as to how the accused has manipulated the account without notice to the other supervisory staff is not clear. These discrepancies and the doubts led the criminal court to hold that the prosecution was not successful in proving the offences alleged against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the order of the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused was set aside. He, therefore, argued that in view of the above circumstances, Bank has to have a second look in the matter.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Bank Sri.P.Ramakrishnan submits that in the enquiry it was proved beyond doubt that it was the petitioner who was instrumental in the amounts coming to his credit in the account from various other accounts and the evidence of all other staff of Bank pointed to the guilt of the petitioner. The very case of the petitioner therefore has to fail on account of the evidence tendered by Thresiamma in the absence of any contra evidence. It is also argued that the petitioner being a Bank employee was obliged to maintain a higher standard, higher degree of honesty and integrity and the charge against the petitioner being serious in nature, the order of dismissal was warranted in the facts of the case. For this purpose he also cited a judgment in State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi and others [(2005) 7 SCC 435]. The learned counsel also argues on the basis of the judgment in Union of India and others v. P.Gunasekaran [(2015( 2 SCC 60] that the scope of interference by this Court in such matters is very limited and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

After hearing the learned counsel on either side and perusing the records, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition for the reasons that are to follow. Indisputably, the amounts from the accounts of the other customers in the Bank had been credited in the account of the petitioner. True, the petitioner has a case that these misappropriation have been made by Thresiamma illegally withdrawing the amounts from the dormant accounts and that he is completely innocent of the allegation levelled against him. The evidence of the other staff of the Bank on this aspect clearly shows that the entire suspicion is against the petitioner who had the knowledge of their ID and had misused the same for drawing amounts from other accounts. All the witnesses on the side of the management had categorically stated the same and all of them pointed fingers against the petitioner. The acquittal in the criminal case in appeal also cannot be taken as the sole reason for varying the punishment imposed by the bank in a disciplinary proceedings.

The fervent plea on behalf of the petitioner to direct a second look by the bank in the wake of the judgment of the criminal court also cannot be sustained at this distance of time, taking into account the fact that the incident happened in the year 2007. At any rate, it has to be seen that the allegation of amounts from several dormant accounts being credited to his personal account is a very serious allegation and as the Supreme Court observes in Bela Bagchi and others (supra), a Bank employee has to exercise a high degree of honesty and integrity compared to other employees, as he deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible step to protect the interests of the bank and also to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of bank officers.

There is no allegation against the conduct of the enquiry proceedings on the procedural aspects or that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry. It is trite that while exercising the power of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary enquiries done by the departmental or the appellate authorities, limits are placed. It is only when this Court is satisfied that on consideration of the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, interference is warranted. The High Court is not and cannot act as second court of first appeal nor venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. Once it is found that the enquiries held by the competent authority and that too according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice generally unless the conclusion is that capricious that no reasonable person could either have arrived at, the findings of fact are normally not interfered with.

In the instant case, going by the evidence on record it cannot be said that, the conclusions arrived at in the enquiry are extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case or that the findings of facts were based on no evidence. In such a situation, re-appreciation of evidence is not called for to find out the adequacy or reliability of the evidence as the findings in the instant case are backed by legal evidence. The charges in the instant case having been proved, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed is disproportionate in any manner. In such circumstances, the orders impugned cannot be held to be wrong much less illegal.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.