Shriram Gautam vs Chairman/Managing Director, Punjab National Bank and Others

S.N. Shukla, J.—Heard Mr. H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner while posted at Piro district Arrah (Bihar) on 19 December 2009 was sanctioned LFC for Goa. He went to Goa by a private vehicle and on 24 February 2010 submitted his TA Bill for the aforesaid LFC. A show cause notice was issued to him on 18 March 2010 with regard to submission of delayed T.A bill and for taking excess suspense advance of Rs. 1 lakh. The petitioner submitted reply of show cause notice on 27.3.2010. Another notice was issued to him on 20.4.2010 to reply further query with respect to place of journey and stay etc. The petitioner further submitted reply on 15.5.2010, whereby he submitted that he did not keep any other bill except TA bill. Therefore, in furtherance of inquiry the Manager of the Bank wrote a letter to "Lucknow Tour & Travels" to know about the package of the tour offered to the petitioner. The aforesaid travel agency replied that it never received any payment in respect of bill No. 09 from the petitioner. Therefore, on 21 February 2011 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1977. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that he defrauded the bank by giving false declaration for availment of LFC and raised excess suspense advance. He had also been permitted by the Bank to keep his family at Lucknow but in the LFC he claimed Railway fare to and fro of his wife from Piro to Lucknow, whereas he had shown his journey to Goa via Lucknow. Accordingly, he defrauded the Bank to the tune of Rs. 43,231/- and also for giving false declaration of availing of LFC.

The petitioner submitted reply of charge sheet on 5.5.2011 denying all the charges. The Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry and submitted an inquiry report on 30.3.2012. On the basis of inquiry report the punishment order dated 24.8.2012 was issued against the petitioner imposing major penalty of reduction to a lower Grade in terms of Regulation 4(g) of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 and further to place him in MMG scale-II at initial stage.

Aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of punishment before the opposite party No. 2, which was rejected vide order dated 18.6.2013. The appellate authority confirmed the penalty imposed upon the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while passing the punishment order the reply submitted by the petitioner had not been taken into account. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, which is a major penalty, is too harsh and is completely disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. He further contended that the penalty being excessive one is in violation of Regulation 3.8.24 of Chapter-III of the Disciplinary Procedure for PNB Officers. He further contended that clause 19.12(2) of Bipartite Settlement dated 19 October 1966 provides that in awarding punishment, the disciplinary authority should take into account the gravity of misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the employee and any other aggravating or extenuating circumstances that may exist. The petitioner has also claimed the violation of Regulation 4(g) of Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 in passing the order of punishment.

On the doctrine of proportionality Mr. H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has cited the following case:--

"(1) Management of Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Vs. Secretary, Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Employees Association and Another, ."

Per contra, Mr. D.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the Bank has pointed out that the petitioner has submitted LFC TA Bill for availing LFC from Arrah to Lucknow by train and from Lucknow to Goa by Taxi. A taxi No. UP-32-CZ-1525 was alleged to have been hired from ''Lucknow Tours and Travels'', Lucknow from 24.12.2009 to 2.1.2010 for to and fro journey from Lucknow to Goa, whereas it had been reported that he has never visited Goa and submitted false taxi bill No. 09 dated 3.1.2010 of ''Lucknow Tours & Travels'' for Rs. 43,231/-. The Travel Agency had denied issuance of any such bill or from receiving any such payment from the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted a false declaration that he would avail LFC for Goa and took suspense advance of Rs. 1 lakh on 19.12.2009, whereas the proposed expenditure of LFC TA Bill was Rs. 44,995/-. The petitioner adjusted the excess suspense advance after a gap of 69 days. Thus, he mis-utilized the bank''s fund for 69 days. Further the petitioner was permitted to keep his family at Lucknow, but in LFC TA Bill, he claimed railway fare of his wife for journey from Piro to Lucknow and back. Since the petitioner has committed financial lapses and irregularities a departmental inquiry was instituted in which the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. During the course of inquiry the petitioner had failed to produce any such miscellaneous bills/receipts, petrol bills, toll tax receipts and hospital bills etc. to substantiate his contention that he along with his family members had performed journey from Lucknow to Goa. Therefore, the disciplinary authority has rightly arrived at conclusion that the petitioner was entitled for a major penalty of reduction to lower grade or post in terms of Regulation 4(g) of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent-bank has cited the following decision:--

"(1) State Bank of India and Another Vs. Bela Bagchi and Others, . In this case it has been held that a bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank."

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we found that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to establish that he had actually travelled from Lucknow to Goa by Taxi No. UP-CZ-1525. Even though he produced the tour bills before the respondents to obtain concession which further establishes his deliberate intention to receive the government fund in forged manner. Being an employee of the Bank he had further failed to establish his integrity and honesty to the Bank. His aforesaid conduct can also be termed as misconduct. The quantity of amount received by him may not be material, but the material for determination of his misconduct is his intention as to whether he received the payment in good faith or to defraud the Bank. His LFC bill alleged to be issued by the ''Lucknow Tours & Travels'' had been denied by the Travel Agency. The Travel Agency had also denied from receiving any such payment from the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that it is not a case which would persuade us to interfere in the order of punishment awarded to the petitioner i.e. reduction to a lower grade as well as to place him in MMG scale-II at initial stage.

In so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, keeping in view the petitioner''s fraudulent act the punishment awarded to the petitioner could not be said to be disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.

In the result the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.