1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
3. Under challenge is the suspension order dated 17.10.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
4. This Court had passed the following order on 16.11.2019 which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:-
"Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
Under challenge is the suspension order dated 17.10.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground that he absented himself on 17.10.2019 without any prior permission with the result that the banking work was hampered. Certain other charges were also levelled against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for casual leave for two days through his application dated 16.10.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, w.e.f. 17.10.2019 to 19.10.2019. The said application had been rejected by the respondent Bank through an order, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition. It is contended that despite the petitioner not feeling well he reported for duty on 17.10.2019 at Bank and when his condition deteriorated he left the bank after handing over the keys to the Cashier and went to the Community Health Center and thereafter returned back to the Bank and continued with his routine official work which is ascertainable from the entries made by the petitioner through his official identity, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the petition. It is thus contended that there was no occasion for the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension.
On the other hand, Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that once the petitioner had applied for two days casual leave which application was rejected on account of shortage of staff in the Bank, the petitioner reported for duty at Bank on 17.10.2019 at 10:17 AM but left the Bank with the result that the entire banking work suffered. Sri Khan on the basis of instructions submits that only subsequent thereto another employee was requested to carry out the banking work which was assigned to the petitioner which thereafter resulted in the banking work being carried out from 03:46 PM on 17.10.2019.
Having heard learned counsel for the contesting parties, the crux of the issue would be as to whether the petitioner after having got himself medically examined at Community Health Center returned back to the Bank on 17.10.2019 as has been contended by Sri Seth and denied by Sri Khan, learned counsel for the Bank.
In this view of the mater, let written instructions be obtained from the Bank as to whether the petitioner had reported back for duty to carry out banking transactions as comes out from perusal of impugned order, a copy of which is Anmnexure-10 to the petition.
List this case in the next week as fresh. "
5. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 22.11.2019, the Court had passed the following order:-
"Counter affidavit filed by Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank and supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner are taken on record.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 16.11.2019 it has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit that even after the petitioner had been placed under suspension and one Smt. Arti Verma had been deputed to carry out the banking duties through order dated 17.10.2019, a copy of which is annexure CA 5 to the counter affidavit, it was reported by Smt Arti Verma that the petitioner came inside the bank, sat beside Smt Arti Verma and despite she stopping the petitioner, he used his ID to verify three entries of the bank.
Refuting this, Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate contends that the suspension order had been served upon the petitioner at 03:58 P.M on 17.10.2019. As per the entries of the Bank, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure S1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today, the entries done by the petitioner are of 1547, 1546, 1541 Hrs i.e prior to suspension of the petitioner and, as such no fault can be placed upon the petitioner in having carried out the bank duties after returning back to the bank. It is also contended that Smt Arti Verma was authorized subsequent to the petitioner being placed under suspension to carry out the banking duty as would be apparent from the entries made under the ID of Smt. Arti Verma which starts from 1606 Hrs till 1608 Hrs. Sri Seth also contends that the petitioner had also processed and passed four loans, copies of which have been filed cumulatively as annexure S2 to the supplementary affidavit.
Upon the same being pointed out to Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, he prays for some time to revert back to the Court as to when the loan documents were processed by the petitioner and the discrepancies in the timings as have been pointed by Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate.
As such, on the request of Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, list this case in the next week as fresh."
6. Today, Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that so far as the loan documents being processed by the petitioner on 17.10.2019 are concerned, the said loan documents were sent by the Society for sanction to the Bank on 21.09.2019. It is contended that the same had been sanctioned by the petitioner on 17.10.2019. Sri Khan further submits that a contradictory stand is sought to be taken by the petitioner inasmuch as on the one hand he submits that he was ill on that particular date and was unable to carry out any banking duty till he returned back to the bank from Community Health Centre and on the other hand there was no occasion for the petitioner to have sanctioned the said loan file lying with the bank since almost one month. He also submits that there would be no occasion for the petitioner to have copies of the said sanction of the loan amount which itself indicates that financial transactions of the bank are being brought out in the open.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. What clearly comes from the arguments and the pleadings is that the petitioner had left the bank on 17.10.2019 without permission. The banking duties were thereafter assigned to one Smt. Arti Verma. The letter of Smt. Arti Verma has also been brought on record as Annexure CA-5 to the counter affidavit whereby it has been reported by Smt. Arti Verma that the petitioner came inside the bank, sat besides her and despite she having stopped the petitioner, he used his ID to verify three entries of the bank. Incidentally the said three entries have been made the basis by the petitioner to indicate that the petitioner had returned back to the bank and had carried out the banking transactions. The fact of the matter would remain that banking activities are extremely sensitive and once despite the duties of the petitioner having been assigned to another bank employee there was no occasion for the petitioner to have carried out the banking activities despite he being stopped by the employee to whom the said banking activities had been assigned. Thus, it appears that the petitioner has prima facie not carried out the duties that had been assigned to him by leaving the bank and thereafter when he was restrained from carrying out the banking activities, he forcibly did the same in order to justify that he is conscientious worker. On the one hand, the petitioner had left the bank without information and on the other hand in order to show that he is a conscientious worker, he sanctioned and approved those loan applications that had been lying with the bank for sanction and approval since about a month.
8. In this regard, the Court may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Bela Bagchi and Ors. - (2005) 7 SCC 435, wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that a Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity as he deals with money of the depositors and the customers. It was also held that every officer/employee of the Bank should 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. It was also held that it is no defence that there was no loss or profit which resulted in case when the officer/employee acted without authority and that the very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. For the sake of convenience, relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bela Bagchi (supra) are reproduced as under:-
"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. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik MANU/SC/1578/1996 : (1996)IILLJ379SC, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance."
Likewise the Apex Court in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik - (1996) 9 SCC 69 has held as under:-
"7. It may be mentioned that in the memorandum of charges, the aforesaid two regulations are said to have been violated by the respondent. Regulation 3 requires every officer/employee of the Bank 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. It requires the officer/employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and to act to the best of his judgment in performance of his official duties or in exercise of the powers conferred upon him. Breach of Regulation 3 is "misconduct" within the meaning of Regulation 24. The findings of the Enquiry Officer which have been accepted by the disciplinary authority, and which have not been disturbed by the High Court, clearly show that in number of instances the respondent allowed overdrafts or passed cheques involving substantial amounts beyond his authority. True, it is that in some cases, no loss has resulted from such acts. It is also true that in some other instances such acts have yielded profit to the Bank but it is equally true that in some other instances, the funds of the Bank have been placed in jeopardy; the advances have become sticky and irrecoverable. It is not a single act; it is a course of action spreading over a sufficiently long period and involving a large number of transactions. In the case of a Bank - for that matter, in the case of any other organisation - every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the Bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the Bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting beyond authority - that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances - is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such adventures are not given to the employees of Banks which deals with public funds. If what we hear about the reasons for the collapse of Brings Bank is true, it is attributable to the acts of one of its employees, Nick Leeson, a minor officer stationed at Singapore, who was allowed by his superiors to act far beyond his authority. As mentioned hereinbefore the very discipline of an organisation and more particularly, a Bank is dependent upon each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of Regulation 3. It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really necessary though as a matter of fact, in this case there are findings that several advances and over-drawls allowed by the respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable. Just because, similar acts have fetched some profit - huge profit, as the High Court characterizes it - they are no less blameworthy. It is wrong to characterise them as errors of judgment. It is not suggested that the respondent being a Class-I officer was not aware of the limits of his authority or of his powers. Indeed, Charge No. 9, which has been held established in full is to the effect that inspite of instructions by the Regional Office to stop such practice, the respondent continue to indulge in such acts. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. Similarly, Charge No. 8, which has also been established in full is to the effect that inspite of reminders, the respondent did not submit "Control returns" to the Regional Office. We fail to understand how could all this be characterised as errors of judgment and not as misconduct as defined by the Regulations. We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a clear error in holding that the aforesaid conduct of the respondent does not amount to misconduct or that it does not constitute violation of Regulations 3 and 24."
9. When the facts of the instant case are tested at the touchstone of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Bela Bagchi (supra) and Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (supra) what comes out is that gross indiscipline has been committed by the petitioner in having left the bank and thereafter in having carried out the banking transactions despite he having been restrained from doing so initially by the bank and thereafter by the lady employee who was deputed to carry out the work of the petitioner. All these indicate indiscipline on the part of the petitioner and having acted beyond his authority which, if left unchecked, the discipline of the bank will disappear; the functioning of the Bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline.
10. Thus, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned suspension order of the petitioner.
11. Sri Seth has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Basant Lal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others - 2008 SCC OnLine All 160 to contend that suspension should not be resorted to in trivial matters. The said case would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case as in the said case it was held that a Government servant should not be suspended for a trivial matter. In the instant case the conduct of the petitioner-a bank employee, as already indicated above, does not make out that the suspension of the petitioner was on a trivial matter.
12. Sri Seth has also placed reliance on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram vs. State of U.P. and others - 2007 SCC OnLine All 1390. The said judgment is also distinguishable inasmuch as the present case deals with a banking employee where he has acted beyond his authority inasmuch as, despite being restrained from carrying out banking activities, he had proceeded to carry out the same. Thus, even the judgment of Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the present case.
13. The Court is of the view that the said judgments would also not be applicable in case of the petitioner as instant matter pertains to a bank employee and, as already indicated above, the banking activities are extremely sensitive and despite the petitioner having been restrained from carrying out the banking activities, he forcibly carried out the same.
14. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 A. Katiyar