Sanjib Roy vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J

The writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to quash the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 27.12.2014, penalty order of the disciplinary authority dated 29.01.2015 and the appellate order dated 13.04.2016.

The chargesheet dated 09.07.2014 was issued to the petitioner under the major penalty proceedings in terms of regulation 6 of the United Bank of India and Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976 (for short “the 1976 Regulations”) alleging irregularities during the tenure of his service as Manager of the Amtala Branch of the United Bank of India (for short “the Bank”) for the period from 01.09.2012 to 08.08.2013. The United Bank of India subsequently stood merged with the Punjab National Bank.

In the chargesheet, 14 charges were leveled against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had extended undue financial benefits to KCC borrowers at the Bank’s cost thereby exposing the bank to huge financial loss.

A departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner on the charges leveled against him and the Enquiry Officer after conducting the departmental enquiry submitted his report on 27.12.2014. Petitioner replied to the report of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority imposed the major penalty of “dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” upon the petitioner by the order dated 29.01.2015.

Petitioner filed an appeal petition against the penalty order and the appellate authority by its order dated 13.04.2016 dismissed the said appeal petition.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

Mr. Bose learned Advocate assisted by Mr. Pal contended that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He contended that the list of documents were not supplied to the petitioner. The affidavit-in-chief of the management witnesses were also not served upon the petitioner. He further submitted that the enquiry proceeding was concluded on 21.11.2014 in hot haste. He contended that adequate opportunity to inspect the voluminous documents was not afforded to the petitioner. He, thus, submitted that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in violation of the 1976 Regulations.

Mr. Bose placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. vs. Workmen reported in AIR 1963 SC 1914 in order to highlight the manner in which a domestic enquiry is to be conducted. He also referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 108 in support of his contention that judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives a fair treatment. Mr. Bose contended that the instant disciplinary enquiry resulted in loss of livelihood to the petitioner and, therefore, such enquiry is to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the report of the Enquiry Officer must be a reasoned one. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and ors. reported in (1985) 3 SCC 378. Mr. Bose submitted that while conducting the disciplinary proceedings the disciplinary authority has to follow the relevant rules and regulations. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and ors. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10. Mr. Bose concluded by submitting that the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of dismissal is required to be set aside and quashed with a direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service and pay all financial benefits to him.

Mr. Majumdar learned Advocate appearing for the Bank seriously disputed the submissions advanced by Mr. Bose. He contended that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings and such proceeding was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He contended that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank and ors. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583 and Sub-Divisional Officer, Konch vs. Maharaj Singh reported in (2003) 9 SCC 191. On the question of integrity and honesty of a Bank Officer, Mr. Majumdar placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority and ors. reported in 1997 SCC (L & S) 1241. Mr. Majumdar contended that the charges that have been proved in the enquiry amounts to gross misconduct on the part of a Bank Officer and therefore, the punishment of removal was fully justified. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. vs. T.J.Paul reported in (1999) 4 SCC 759. On the question of proportionality of punishment, Mr. Majumdar placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. vs. P. Chandra Mouli and anr. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 272 and Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) vs. A.T. Mane reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254. Mr. Majumdar contended that this Court should not interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority as there has been no error in the decision making process. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and ors. vs. P.C.Kakkar reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 was pressed into service to impress upon this Court the limits of jurisdiction of the High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Majumdar contended that the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot venture into re-appreciation of evidence or interfere with conclusions in enquiry proceedings if the same are conducted in accordance with law or go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience of court. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610.

Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

In Syed Yakoob (supra) and Maharaj Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of the High Court is supervisory one and the High Court cannot act as a second court of first appeal and also should not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence adduced in a disciplinary proceeding to alter the findings of the enquiry authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Gunasekaran (supra) held that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India can only see whether –

“a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, gave a note of caution by observing that the High Court shall not –

“(i). re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”

Bearing in mind the aforesaid propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court shall now proceed to decide this writ petition.

The writ petitioner has alleged that there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice by the authorities while conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that the Presenting Officer submitted the list of management exhibits relied upon by the bank in the chargesheet.

Mr. Bose would vehemently contend that the list of documents relied upon as well as the copy of the statements of witnesses were not served upon the petitioner/ Charge Sheeted Officer (C.S.O) at the time of issuing the chargesheet which amounts to blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. It appears from the materials on record that the CSO was afforded an opportunity in terms of the 1976 regulations to inspect and verify the copies of documents. The CSO also confirmed the authenticity of the copies of the documents supplied to him. Upon being directed to submit the list of documents and witnesses, the CSO informed that no defense witness and/or defense documents will be produced at the enquiry. It further appears from the record that opportunity was given to the CSO to cross examine the Bank’s witness. The CSO submitted his observations with regard to the written brief submitted by the Presenting Officer in connection with the departmental enquiry vide letter dated 08.01.2015. From the said written statement dated 08.01.2015 it appears that the petitioner raised various defenses on merits against the allegations levelled against him. As against the enquiry report, the CSO also submitted his written representation dated 19.01.2015 raising various defenses on merits.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishwa Mohan (supra) after taking note of the fact that the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the delinquent until the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal, observed that the delinquent did not suffer any prejudice as he had an opportunity to assail the findings of the enquiry authority in the statutory appeal as well as in the writ petition. On such factual background the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B, Karunakar reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 that the Court/ Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished. The allegation of suffering any prejudice as a result of alleged non-supply of list of documents and statements of witnesses does not appear to have been raised by the petitioner at any stage of the disciplinary enquiry. The authorities in the disciplinary proceedings have dealt with the defenses of the petitioner as against the charges leveled against him on merits. For all the aforesaid reasons this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be said that the petitioner suffered any prejudice as a result of alleged non-supply of list of documents at the time of issuing the charge sheet.

For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is, therefore, of the considered view that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner herein for alleged non-supply of list of documents and statement of witnesses. Petitioner could not satisfy this Court as to how he suffered prejudice in the enquiry proceeding. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of Mr. Bose that there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

It is well settled that in a case where disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma, the disciplinary enquiry has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer has a duty to act judicially. The report of the Enquiry Officer which forms part of the enquiry proceedings must disclose the reasons to support the ultimate conclusion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar (supra) held that a report of an Enquiry Officer has to be a speaking order and it cannot be an ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer.

The petitioner/ CSO was inflicted with the major penalty of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. Such an order undoubtedly resulted in affecting the livelihood of the petitioner and is likely to cast a stigma.

In order to decide whether the report of the Enquiry Officer satisfies the tests laid down in Anil Kumar (supra), the record of the enquiry is to be scrutinised. This Court is conscious of the well settled proposition that the scope of the review should not be too broad. It is equally true that the scope of judicial enquiry must not be so restricted that the purpose of judicial review is totally frustrated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Biswanath Bhattacharjee (supra) observed that judicial review of administrative decisions warrants a minimum level of scrutiny.

Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, this Court has perused the materials on record including the inquiry report and the orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authority.

Fourteen number of charges were leveled against the petitioner in the chargesheet. The Enquiry Officer after taking note of the evidences adduced by the witnesses discussed the evidences and assigned cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by him in respect of each of the fourteen number of charges. The Enquiry Officer after scrutinising the exhibited documents namely ME-3/1, 3/2, 3/30 observed that the CSO had enhanced the credit limits of 29 KCC loan accounts without obtaining relevant papers such as application forms, request letters for enhancement and other loan documents from the borrower. Upon scrutinising exhibits being ME-4/1 the Enquiry Officer observed that the CSO had not reported the enhancement of credit limits to the Regional Office through the discretionary power statements. Upon scrutiny of ME-3/3(1), ME-4/2, ME-5/1, the Enquiry Officer observed that the CSO opened two new KCC loan accounts without obtaining any loan application form, KYC documents and other loan related papers and also that no sanction was also accorded for those loan accounts. The Enquiry Officer further observed that the opening of a savings account in the name of one Jillar Rahman Biswas without obtaining any application form, photograph and KYC document was established by the documents being ME-3/31(3), ME-5/2, ME-6/1 and ME-6/2. It was further observed in the said report that the CSO entered several debit transactions aggregating to Rs. 15,70,500 in KCC loan accounts without any mandate from borrowers and the entire amount was credited to the savings bank account of Jillar Rahman Biswas. The Enquiry Officer further observed on the basis of various exhibited documents that the CSO had modified/ verified, ten debit transactions aggregating to Rs. 6,91,000 in KCC loan accounts without any mandate from the borrowers and the entire amount had been credited to the savings account of Jillar Rahman Biswas. Upon physical scrutiny of ME-9, ME-10/2 to ME-29 the Enquiry Officer observed that the CSO entered fourteen debit transfer transactions amounting to Rs. 10,58,500 in the savings bank account of Jillar Rahman Biswas without any mandate from the customer and also that no physical vouchers for such transactions were available on records. Upon physical scrutiny of ME-10/1, ME-10/30 to ME-10/43 the Enquiry Officer observed that the CSO had allowed transfer of Rs. 9.60 Lakhs from savings bank account of Jillar Rahman Biswas through seven debit transactions without any mandate and out of such transaction a sum of Rs. 6.80 Lakh was transferred to Swastik Constructions through RTGS and Rs. 2 Lakh was transferred to Samrat Constructions through NEFT and the balance amount was transferred to UKC loan account of one Sk Saiful. The Enquiry Officer further noted that physical vouchers for such transactions are not available on record. Upon scrutiny of various exhibited documents the Enquiry Officer observed that during the tenure of CSO at Lakshmipur Branch and just before his assignment at Amtala Branch he had sanctioned the loan of Hassan Wood Furniture, Sk Saiful and recommended the loan for Jyotsna Brick Field. It was stated in the said report that the CSO transferred a sum of Rs. 11.11 lakhs from the savings account of Jillar Rahman Biswas to the accounts of the aforesaid borrowers with Lakshmipur Branch thereby giving them undue favours. The Enquiry Officer upon considering various exhibited documents observed that the CSO did not ensure the checking of physical vouchers with system generated sub-cashbook. He also failed to maintain manual transfer journal in Amtala Branch.

After going through the Inquiry Report, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer applied his mind to the evidences, discussed the evidence and assigned cogent reasons to support the ultimate conclusion. The report of the Enquiry Officer is a speaking one. The Enquiry Officer held that all the articles of charge stands entirely proved.

To the mind of this Court, the Inquiry Report satisfies the tests laid down in Anil Kumar (supra).

The petitioner/CSO submitted his written argument against the Inquiry report. The defence of the petitioner with regard to the charges was that he had to enhance the credit limits of the KCC loan accounts under huge pressure from regional office level and due to such immense pressure proper documentation and reporting of sanction might have been slipped away. It was also contended that reporting of enhancement also escaped his eyes. In so far as the allegation of disbursement without mandates are concerned, petitioner contended that some of those being verbal could not be kept recorded.

The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the report of the Enquiry Officer dealt with each of the contentions of the petitioner specifically. The disciplinary authority observed that non-availability of applications and sanctioned letters for enhancement of KCC loans are established and the CSO has not produced any documents to disprove the charge. Allegations by customers of not availing any UKC loan after repayment of their existing loans are also documented. The disciplinary authority further recorded that the petitioner could not produce any document during the enquiry proceedings or thereafter to refute the allegations.

Petitioner was the senior manager of the bank and, therefore, the disciplinary authority was right in rejecting the defence of the petitioner of immense pressure from RO level for sanctioning loans as a lame excuse for not obtaining loan applications and other documents. The disciplinary authority took into consideration the guidelines of the Bank which clearly state that after sanctioning the loans, report of the same must be submitted to the concerned regional office within a stipulated time period through drawing power statement for noting the same by the higher authority. The disciplinary authority further held that the nature of the mandate requiring release of funds from loan account cannot be verbal and written mandates for such purpose must be preserved. The disciplinary authority further noted that the petitioner could not refute the fact of entering and or verifying the transaction under his user ID and password as enumerated in the chargesheet thereby establishing the charge of irregularity in transferring the funds which was leveled against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority held that the petitioner cannot be absolved of committing all the transactions which involve extension of undue financial benefits to the tune of Rs. 24,69,500. The disciplinary authority also took note of the conduct of the petitioner that out of such amounts, funds aggregating to Rs. 5.69 lakhs was subsequently deposited by the petitioner through paying slips written in his own hand writing.

The disciplinary authority further observed that the irregularity and deliberate acts on the part of the petitioner which was duly proved during the enquiry amounts to breach of trust the bank reposes on its employees and considering the gravity of the proved misconduct the disciplinary authority imposed the major penalty of “dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment”.

The petitioner approached the appellate authority with an appeal petition against the order of the disciplinary authority. After going through the order of the appellate authority this Court finds that the appellate authority after considering the materials on record dealt with the points raised by the petitioner in his appeal petition specifically and concluded that the petitioner has flouted the rules and regulations of the bank while enhancing/ sanctioning the loans and had also done a series of irregular transactions and had misappropriated bank’s loan fund meant for KCC borrowers for his personal gains and purpose. The appellate authority refused to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority and held that the punishment imposed is just, proper and commensurate with the irregularities committed by the petitioner.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regional manager and ors. vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik reported in 1996 SCC (L&S) 1194, Lolit Popli (supra), Vishwa Mohan (supra) and Tara Chand Vyas (supra) held that no bank can function properly if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline and the very act of acting beyond authority for a sufficiently long period involving innumerable instances is by itself a misconduct. A bank employee deals with public money and the nature of his work demands that he has to be vigilant and act carefully. As the banks deals with public money, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by a bank officer, otherwise the confidence of the depositors would be impaired. Any misconduct on the part of the bank employee/ officer can be meted out with disciplinary action in accordance with the service rules and regulations.

Petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was the Senior Manager of the Bank. He was, therefore, required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity while dealing with the money of the depositors and the customers of the Bank. From the aforesaid discussion it is evident that the petitioner failed to take steps to protect the interest of the Bank. He failed to discharge his duties in a manner that is expected from a Senior Manager of the Bank.

In P. Chandra Mouli (supra) and P.C.Kakkar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude and/or the gravity of the charges proved in the enquiry. The High Court while exercising the power of Judicial Review cannot normally substitute its own conclusions on penalty and impose some other penalty. If, however, the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the Court, a direction may be passed upon the disciplinary or appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.

In A.T.Mane (supra), it was held that when a person was found guilty of misappropriating funds there is nothing wrong in the employer in losing confidence or faith in such person in awarding a punishment of dismissal.

The orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are speaking orders. Taking into consideration the number of charges levelled against the petitioner, the nature of the charges proved as well as the period during which such act continued, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate.

The enquiry proceeding was held by a competent authority in accordance with the procedures prescribed therefor. The conclusions arrived at cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary and capricious so that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at such conclusion. The findings arrived at by the authorities in course of the disciplinary proceedings is based on some legal evidence. It has already been observed hereinbefore that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings. The decision making process do not suffer from infirmity. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority which was affirmed by the appellate authority.

This Court shall now deal with the other decisions cited at the Bar.

In Roop Singh Negi (supra) the only basic evidence upon which reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer was the purported confession made before the police authority. On such facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceedings. The said decision being distinguishable on facts do not have any manner of application to the case on hand.

In Kuldeep Singh (supra) the original complaint on the basis of which the enquiry was started was not placed on record and the complainants who were proposed to be examined were also not produced at the departmental enquiry. The said decision being distinguishable on facts do not have any manner of application to the case on hand.

In Anil Kumar (supra) the enquiry report after speaking out the charges and the dates on which the inquiry was held followed by the names of the witnesses produced on behalf of the management recorded that the charges are proved without discussing evidence. On such factual background the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that such a report disclosed a total non-application of mind which form the basis of the order of termination of service of the appellate therein. In the case on hand the Enquiry Officer has elaborately discussed the evidence and applied his mind to the evidence and assigned cogent reasons in support of the ultimate conclusion. It has already been held that the tests laid down in Anil Kumar (supra) have been duly satisfied. Therefore, the decision in the case of Anil Kumar (supra) do not come to the aid of the petitioner in the case on hand.

In Sur Enamel (supra) the persons whose statements were made behind the back of the employees were used by the enquiry authority and were not made available for cross examination and also that they were not even present at the time of enquiry. The said decision being distinguishable on facts do not have any manner of application to the case on hand.

For all the reasons as aforesaid this Court is not inclined to interfere with the inquiry report, penalty order of the disciplinary authority dated 29.01.2015 and the appellate order dated 13.04.2016. The writ petition accordingly fails and the same stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.