Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Petitioner Bare Lal was serving as Branch Manager in Rani Laxmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank which is said to have merged with Serva U.P. Gramin Bank with head office at Meerut w.e.f. 30.11.2007.
A surprise inspection of the branch was conducted on 23.8.1999. On the basis of the above surprise inspection a disciplinary enquiry was instituted against the petitioner on the allegation of fraudulent withdrawal/misappropriation of funds. On completion of enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal upon him vide order dated 8.8.2000. Petitioner's appeal against the dismissal was dismissed by the Board of Directors of the Bank on 10.11.2000 which order was communicated to him vide letter dated 18.12.2000.
Petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal from the service dated 8.8.2000 and the order dated 10.11.2000 passed in appeal (Annexures - 9 and 11 respectively to the writ petition) by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
We have heard Miss Saumya Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Vaish, learned counsel for the respondents. The record of the petition has also been perused by us.
The petitioner was visited with the above penalty of dismissal after a regular departmental enquiry. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 8.10.1999. He duly participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer in his report dated 30.6.2000 found charge no.1 regarding shortage of Rs.50,000/- in cash to be proved and the petitioner guilty of misappropriation. The enquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. The petitioner was given full opportunity to show cause and even personal hearing in the matter before passing of the impugned order of dismissal. In this way, a complete procedure was followed in consonance with the principles of natural justice before awarding the punishment of dismissal to the petitioner. No error or discrepancy in the procedure so followed has been pointed out. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid enquiry stands vitiated on account of any procedural irregularity or that the enquiry conducted or the punishment order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had acted in the interest of the Bank and as there was no fraudulent intention on his part in showing the two withdrawals of Rs.25,000/- each to justify the shortage of cash of Rs.50,000/- detected during the surprise inspection, the order of punishment is bad and is unsustainable.
It is not disputed that at the branch on 21.8.1999 the total cash collection amounted to Rs.79,300/- as per the cash memos. However, during the surprise inspection made on 23.8.1999 cash aggregating to Rs.29,300/- only was found and accordingly there was shortage of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner in order to cover up the aforesaid misappropriation manipulated two withdrawals of Rs.25,000/-, even though such withdrawals were not incorporated in the account books. It has also been recorded that there was no sufficient balance in the alleged saving bank account Nos.2387 and 1989 which could justify the said withdrawals. The version of the petitioner that two customers of the Bank have requested for payment of Rs.25,000/- against encashment of the FDRs was not believed as the FDRs were not even handed over to him/Bank as per his own statement.
Accordingly, petitioner was held guilty of misconduct and penalty of dismissal was imposed in accordance with the Rule 30(f) of Chapter 4 of the Rani Laxmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Seva Niyamawali, 1982. The aforesaid punishment was imposed on consideration of explanation submitted by the petitioner which was not found tenable.
In the case of Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and others 2003(4) E.S.C. (SC) 421 the Supreme Court held that fraudulent withdrawal of money from the bank account of a customer amounts to misconduct and thus refused to interfere with the decision of dismissal taken by the disciplinary authority.
In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the submission that the aforesaid act of the petitioner does not amount to misconduct is totally misconceived and cannot be accepted.
Miss Saumaya Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is too severe.
In almost all the decisions cited by her including the cases of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1996 SC 484 and Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (1983)2 SCC 442 the only principle laid down is that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority must not be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
It may be pertinent to mention that the instant case is not a case of mere act of negligence on the part of the petitioner but a clear cut case of misconduct, inasmuch as the shortage of funds is admitted and it is also apparent on record that such shortage could not have been on account of withdrawals from the saving bank accounts of the two customers as the said saving bank accounts were not having sufficient funds to permit withdrawal to such an extent. The fixed deposit receipt against which the said withdrawals were allegedly permitted were neither discharged nor handed over and deposited in the bank. In such a situation, the decision of the Division Bench consisting Hon'ble S.R.Alam and Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal of this Court dated 10.1.2006 in Special Appeal No.22 of 2006 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director Vs. Abdul Gafoor as cited would also not be applicable and come to the rescue of the petitioner.
Similarly, the petitioner gets no help or support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others (2004) 4 SCC 560. In the said case the employee was punished with dismissal from service on account of single incident of absence beyond leave sanctioned on medical grounds and the Court, in order to mitigate the hardship on equity, directed for setting aside the order of dismissal. The situation in the present case is quite different. It is not a case of absence or overstay on leave and, as stated earlier, the petitioner has been held guilty of misconduct on account of fraudulent withdrawal/ misappropriation of funds which is serious enough in banking business.
The facts and circumstances of the case clearly speak that the petitioner had tried to misappropriate a sum of Rs.50,000/- and had the said shortage not been detected during the surprise inspection, it would have caused not only the financial loss to the Bank but would have also impaired its image. The service of the bank, specially that of the post of Branch Manager is of utmost trust and even a slightest abrasion in discharge of duties is sufficient to entail an order of dismissal. The punishment of dismissal imposed as such is not shocking to the conscience of this Court so as to compel it to intervene in the matter.
The order of punishment passed against the petitioner or even the appellate order are speaking orders. Both the orders have been passed after affording full opportunity to the petitioner and on careful consideration of the submissions advanced on his behalf. Therefore, even the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007 (1) ESC 479 (All) Ramesh Chandra Pandey Vs. Central Bank of India and others which directs the disciplinary authority to re-hear the matter for award of proper punishment in place of dismissal would not be attracted.
The Court is also conscious of its limitations in exercise of its extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction and merely on the basis of sympathy or sentiments cannot invoke doctrine of proportionality to overrule the decision of the disciplinary authority when the disciplinary authority has passed a well reasoned order and there is otherwise no apparent illegality in the same. It is well known that the power of judicial review in such matters of disciplinary action is quite narrow and limited. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for any interference within the limited scope so available with this Court.
Accordingly, in view of totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it to be a fit case for exercising our extra-ordinary power. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8th July, 2011 brizesh