Union Bank Of India And Ors vs Nand Lal Sanwlani

Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 25.01.219 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by the

respondent was allowed.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.

Respondent had been compulsorily retired from service on account of serious charges of misconduct levelled against him. Order of compulsory

retirement preceded a detailed enquiry. Hence, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the appellants against the respondent was liable to be

upheld. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Others Vs.

Nand Kishore Shukla & Another, (1996) 3 SCC 750, wherein it was held as under:

It is settled law that the court is not a court of appeal to go into the question of imposition of the punishment. It is for the disciplinary authority to

consider what would be the nature of the punishment to be imposed on a government servant based upon the proved misconduct against the

government servant. Its proportionality also cannot be gone into by the court. The only question is whether the disciplinary authority would have

passed such an order. It is settled law that even one of the charges, if held proved and sufficient for imposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority

or by the appellate authority, the court would be loath to interfere with that part of the order. The order of removal does not cast stigma on the

respondent to disable him from seeking any appointment elsewhere. Under these circumstances, we think that the High Court was wholly wrong in

setting aside the order.

Respondent, appearing in person, has opposed the appeal.

Respondent was working as Assistant Manager with the appellant-Bank and was served with a charge sheet dated 29.12.2014 alleging that on

14.08.2014, he had entered a fraudulent transaction of Rs. 8,000/- by debiting amount of Rs. 8,000/- from Account No. 352602850009000. Respondent

then attempted to withdraw the said amount by preparing one loose leaf No. 3784588, which was entered with Transaction ID AA392052 by Mangi

Lal Sharma. Since the signatures of the drawer did not match, the accountant took the withdrawal form in his custody and fraud was averted.

It was further alleged against the respondent that when respondent was deputed to Navagaon Branch for recovery in terms of Regional Office,

Udaipur Memorandum dated 05.09.2014, he did not comply with the instructions and remained at Regional Office, Udaipur on 06.09.2014.

Vide Memorandum dated 11.09.2014, respondent was informed that in defiance of instructions of Regional Office, Udaipur, he was putting his

signatures unauthorisedly on muster roll from 06.09.2014 to 09.09.2014 and 11.09.2014.

Respondent submitted his reply alleging that he did not remember under what circumstances, the amount of Rs. 8,000/- had been entered in his ID. In

case status in his ID was ""Entered"", then it meant that both debit and credit had not been effected at all. In case it was a wrong entry, it could have

been deleted by the authorised official. The loose leaf had been brought by the customer/customer's representative and was handed over by him in a

routine manner and in good faith. He further stated that he was undergoing treatment, as he was suffering from depression. He had requested Chief

Manager, along with medical record, for not sending him to Navagaon and the same had been wrongly treated as defiance of instructions. Later

medical bills for his treatment had also been sanctioned and he was transferred to Regional Officer, Jaipur.

The Enquiry Officer after conducting enquiry submitted its report dated 29.04.2015 and held that the charges levelled against the respondent were

duly proved. In view of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 28.07.2015, imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement

from service of the bank with immediate effect, on the respondent. Hence, the writ petition was fled by the respondent.

Learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, has taken in consideration the fact that the case of the bank was that the respondent had

deposited money in the account of Raminder Kaur Anand and had thereafter tried to withdraw the said amount. However, the account holder

Raminder Kaur Anand was not examined before the Enquiry Officer. Thus, the fact that an effort had been made by the respondent to withdraw the

amount of Rs. 8,000/- from the account of Raminder Kaur Anand could not be said to be established as the respondent had been denied the

opportunity to cross-examine the account holder.

The allegation that one loose leaf had been prepared by the respondent was also not established before the Enquiry Officer, as there was no material

on record to establish that the same was signed by the respondent. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent had been held

guilty of the charges framed against him merely on the basis of presumptions.

So far as the allegation of defiance of order of superior authority is concerned, it is the case of the respondent that he had requested that due to his

treatment for depression, he could not join his duty at Navagaon Branch. It was also the case of the (5 of 5) [SAW-595/2019] respondent that his

medical bills regarding his treatment were cleared by the appellants.

It has been observed by the learned Single Judge that the appellate authority had also not examined the submissions put forth by the respondent and

had dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that

as per the additional documents placed on record by the respondent, he had been kept without work, table, chair and computer for 11 months prior to

the date of his compulsory retirement. Although, respondent was not under suspension, but the bills amounting to Rs. 25,000/- submitted by him were

neither sanctioned, nor declined.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the present case was a case of no

evidence and thus, rightly set aside the impugned order whereby respondent was compulsorily retired from service.

The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants fails to advance the case of the appellants, as it is based on different facts.

No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.