Syndicate Bank vs B. Ravindra Rao

Ravi Malimath, J.—The respondent joined the services of the appellant-bank in the year 1973. When he was working as a Manager of the New Market Yard Branch between 22.11.1994 to 14.07.1999, certain acts of irregularities were alleged to have been committed by him. By an order dated 12.11.1999, the respondent was kept under suspension and charge-sheet was issued on 09.02.1999.

Two charges were alleged against him. One in respect of sanction of loan in a sum of Rs. 21,000/- to one Ms. Bharathi and another transfer of a sum. of Rs. 20,000/- from the over draft account of M/s. Ganesh Trading Company, discounted cheques for Rs. 30,000/-, debit of Rs. 40,000/- under the sanctioned CDD limit of M/s. Asia Garments and Exports and as regards recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/- in a bank guarantee paid account. There was no imputation of any personal gain. The second charge was that there was unusual huge credits aggregating to Rs. 3,57,000/- in the overdraft account of the petitioner within a short span of nine months and this was disproportionate to the known source of income of the respondent leading to a suspicion of his bonafides.

The appellant had submitted a reply denying the charges. He was not made aware of the list of documents and the list of witnesses, on the basis of which the charges were framed. The Enquiring Officer by an order dated 03.03.2000 held that the respondent can inspect the documents etc. The respondent was called upon to furnish the list of witnesses.

Thereafter, the Enquiring Officer submitted a report holding that the charges were proved. Except the component of charge no. 1, the respondent had not exposed the bank to the risk of financial loss and that it was not established that the respondent fraudulently transferred certain amounts. So far as charge no. 2 is concerned, it was found that the petitioner has not indulged in any business activity which was detrimental to the interest of the Bank.

By a Notice dated 02.08.2000, he was called upon to reply to the same. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by its order dated 18.08.2000 imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. The same was challenged by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority, wherein by an order dated 06.11.2000, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 26053/2001

The learned Single Judge by an order dated 18.12.2008 allowed the petition. The order of dismissal in terms of Annexure-P and Annexure-R therein were quashed. The petitioner was reinstated with 30% backwages, continuity of service and other service benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed the present appeal.

Shri. V. Abilash Raju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends the order of the learned Single Judge is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. That the learned Single Judge has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that since neither Ms. Bharathi was examined as a witness nor offered for any cross-examination, charge no. 1 could not be held proved against the respondent. That various other materials have been relied by the appellant-bank in order to prove charge no. 1.

The respondent is served and unrepresented.

On hearing the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. The first contention advanced is insofar as reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the evidence of Ms. Bharathi, is concerned. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the bank heavily placed reliance on her statement in order to establish charge no. 1. However, while going through the enquiry report, it is contended by the appellant that charge no. 1 has been proved not merely on the evidence of Ms. Bharathi, but that the evidence of Ms. Bharathi was additionally, taken into consideration.

Further, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the bank has placed heavy reliance on the statement by Ms. Bharathi. That in order to place reliance on such a statement it is therefore imminent that she be examined. However, admittedly she was neither examined as a witness nor was offered for cross-examination. That since reliance was placed by the bank on the statement of Ms. Bharathi, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the charge no. 1 could not have been established by the bank. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was just and appropriate in holding that the statement by Ms. Bharathi could not be relied upon to establish charge no. 1. She has neither been examined nor offered for cross-examination. None of her statements could be relied upon. Hence, the finding of the learned Single Judge so far as charge no. 1 is undisturbed.

The learned Single Judge was of the view that charge no. 2 has not been proved. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that so far as charge no. 2 is concerned there is substantial material to show that he was having dealing with various customers of the Bank. That there was unaccounted overdraft so far as his account is concerned. We have examined the material relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. We are of the considered view that although he had dealings with the customers, there is no allegation that there was any financial loss for the bank. As could be seen, even the material on evidence would show that the amounts were transferred from the account of the appellant and the same could not have been held that it has resulted in undue financial loss to the bank.

A reading of the material would show that the amounts were put in the bank by the Manager in one case in order to ensure that the particular account does not become NPA. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there is any irregularity or illegality by the respondent with any malafide intention.

Even otherwise, Annexures-A, B and C pertains to the performance appraisal of the respondent between 1995-1996, 1996-97, 1997-98. The overall performance as narrated therein is that the performance of the respondent was ''outstanding''. This is also an additional factor to come to the conclusion that the Bank Manager with such a performance would not have committed such a fraud or otherwise and caused any financial loss to the bank. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the findings of the learned Single Judge is just and appropriate.

Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground to intervene with the order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.