Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Exemption Application No.1 of 2020
1. The application seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the order of the High Court is allowed.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2020
1. Heard on the application for condonation of delay. The delay is of 355 days in filing the appeal.
2. The affidavit in support to the application shows reasons.
3. The application aforesaid is not contested by the side opposite and accordingly delay in filing appeal is condoned.
4. The application is allowed with the aforesaid.
Order on Memo of Appeal
1. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.2019 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner to challenge the order of punishment was accepted.
3. It is a case where the petitioner was served with a charge sheet containing four charges. After the inquiry, charge nos.1 to 3 were found proved while charge no.4 was not found proved. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment in reference to charge nos.1 to 3. The petitioner/non-appellant preferred an appeal to challenge the order of punishment. The Appellate Authority interfered in the order of punishment finding charge nos.2 and 3 as not proved. It was only in reference to charge no.1.
4. The charges contained in the charge sheet are reproduced hereunder:
"1) He had opened two S.B. Account nos. 3646 and 3647 on 24.12.1991 without obtaining proper introduction and completion of necessary formalities. He thus failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, diligence and devotion. This was violation of Regulation (3) of UCO Bank Officers Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976.
2) While depositing huge amount of Bank's cash in the currency chest branch at Meerut, he did not follow the procedure laid down in the Bank's Manual of Instructions (Cash) and also deviated from the past practice followed by the branch for such such remittances. He thus failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, diligence and devotion. This was violation of Regulation (3) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976.
3) By opening the two accounts without getting proper introduction, allowing huge transactions therein, issuing certificates, he facilitated unscrupulous persons to derive pecuniary benefits under Government amnesty schemes to which they were not entitled. He thus, failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, diligence and devotion. This was violation of Regulation (3) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976.
4) Shri Bhardwaj remained absent from his duties for a period of several months without proper sanction of leave, as per Bank's rules. He thus failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, diligence and devotion. This was violation of Regulation (3) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976."
5. Charge No.1 was found to be vague by the learned Single Judge and otherwise required evidence to prove the allegation could not be produced in the inquiry. Thus, interference in the order passed by the Appellate Authority was made by the learned Single Judge.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the lapse of the petitioner, loss was caused to the Bank as the Income Tax department has issued notice for recovery of the amount. It is for the reason that without proper introduction and completion of necessary formalities, bank accounts were opened where huge amount were deposited. It was withdrawn within 2-3 days to take benefit of Government Amnesty Schemes. It is based on the certificate given by the delinquent. In view of the misuse of the Government Amnesty Schemes pursuant to certificate issued by the delinquent, the Income Tax Department has caused notice for recovery of the amount as those persons were not found available despite sending notice on their address. The prayer is accordingly to cause interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant made arguments in reference to charge no.3. The aforesaid charge was not found proved by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the argument about issuance of certificate to allow benefit of Government Amnesty Schemes in favour of the account holders cannot be accepted so as the statement regarding a notice for recovery of the amount by the Income Tax Department. The aforesaid was not even a charge. The charge number 3 was pertaining to issuance of certificate and Amenesty Scheme but was not found proved.
8. So far as charge no.1 is concerned, it is found to be vague by the learned Single Judge and otherwise we do not find any error in the judgment because the charge no.1 co-relate with charge no.3 as opening of two accounts without obtaining proper introduction and completion of necessary formalities was having consequence as given under charge no.3, but, the aforesaid charge was not found proved by the Appellate Authority. Hence no reason remains to cause interference in the judgment of learned Single Judge. The finding has been recorded that the charge should have been specific with required details so that it can be defended by the delinquent. It should not be given with vagueness as exist here. The allegation made against the non-appellant during the course of inquiry was that introducer's signature was forged though to prove the aforesaid, none was produced in the inquiry. That was not even the charge. The Bank even failed to refer as to what formalities were required to observed by the petitioner and therefore finding charge to be unspecific, the learned Single Judge caused interference in the order of punishment.
9. In view of the above, we find no reason to cause interference in the judgment of learned Single Judge.
10. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 KA