Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application Since the matter has been heard and decided on merits, the application for condonation of delay is not opposed by the counsel for the side opposite and accordingly it is accepted.
Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Accordingly the application is allowed as aforesaid.
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 19.10.2019 whereby the writ petition preferred by the non-appellant was allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that interference in the order of punishment has been made by the learned Single Judge as if sitting as Appellate Authority. The re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible yet the learned Single Judge has re-appreciated the evidence to cause interference in the order.
It is stated that a serious charges were leveled against the non-appellant. Due to his negligence, a theft took place in the bank by breaking the rear door. An enquiry pursuant to charge sheet was conducted where charge Nos. 1 and 4 were found proved. The Disciplinary Authority accordingly imposed punishment of compulsory retirement.
It is submitted that non-appellant kept the keys of cash/strong room in the almirah due to which theft took place. He was made responsible for the reason that on the date of the delinquency, the Branch Manager left the bank early, thus the non-appellant became responsible. The Enquiry Officer found charge Nos. 1 & 4 as proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report and imposed the punishment.
The learned Single Judge has interfered in the order of punishment mainly in reference to the witness produced by the appellant bank. It is no doubt that only Branch Manager was produced as witness to prove the charge though he himself was also delinquent, but merely for that reason, the learned Single Judge should not have brushed aside the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid, impugned judgment may be set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellants has cited two judgments of Apex Court to substantiate his argument. The first judgment is in the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and others Vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, Civil Appeal No.3820 of 2020 decided on 25th November, 2020.
The other judgment is in the case of Disciplinary Authority -cum- Regional Manager Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, 1996 Law Suit (SC) 758 .
We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
The judgment of the learned Single Judge has been challenged mainly on the ground that he decided the writ petition as if acting as an Appellate Authority without realising limited jurisdiction vested in him.
To appreciate the argument aforesaid, we have gone through the record and find that the non-appellant was served with the charge-sheet containing five charges which are as under:-
"1. Being one of the joint custodians of cash, Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj was responsible for safety of keys of cash/strong room, he did not keep the keys in his person as per guidelines of the Bank, instead left the keys in the branch premises over-night in an almirah in contravention to the guidelines for safety of keys of cash Safe/Strong Room. He was most negligent and his handing the keys in a perfunctory manner resulted into theft/loss of cash of Rs. 12.00 lacs from the Cash Safe.
2. Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj, being one of the custodians of cash, did not arrange to remit the surplus cash on 10.11.1999 to Currency Chest, Belanganj Branch, Agra even though there was huge cash balance much more than the average anticipated daily requirement. Thus, he did not take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence which is violative of Regulation- 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.
3. Before leaving the branch on 10.11.1999 after close of cash, Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj did not check about the closure of one rear gate between the main hall and passage towards toilet of Sewla Branch, Agra which was left unlocked/opened on 10.11.99. Thus, he did not take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence which is violative of Regulation- 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.
4. Mr. Bhardwaj did not maintain the Key Register for noting the transfer of keys from one holder to another. He himself along with Chief Cashier had not signed the key Register on taking over charge of the keys of Cash Safe/Strong Room of the branch. Thus, he did not take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence which is violative of Regulation- 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.
5. That Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj was in hand and glove with some person with an ulterior motive in perpetration of theft of cash at Sewla branch for Rs. 12.00 lacs on 10th / 11th November, 1999. Thus, he failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty, which is violative of Regulation- 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended."
The charge No. 2, 3 & 5 were not found proved by the Enquiry Officer. After receipt of the Enquiry Report, the appellant passed the order of punishment.
The learned Single Judge found that to prove the charges, only Branch Manager was produced who himself was delinquent in the same case. It is based on the statement of co-delinquent that charge No. 1 and 4 were found proved by the Enquiry Officer. It is despite the fact that incidence was reported by a part-time sweeper. He was not produced in the evidence.
The relevant part in the enquiry report indicating that on 11.11.1999 the incidence of theft was reported by part-time sweeper and is quoted here under:-
"On 11.11.99 morning when the Part-Time-Sweeper of the Sewla branch came to the branch for cleaning of branch's premises, he informed after opening the Main Gate, that the kundas of two rear doors of back portion of the branch premises were broken and one Almirah in the stationery room partially broken and he reported the matter to the Manager of Sewla branch and other staff members of said branch on their arrival in the branch. Thereafter, the C.S.O. informed that the keys of case safe, Strong Room kept by him in the Almirah on 10.11.1999 before leaving the branch, were stolen by the miscreants. The other joint custodian of cash Mr. K.L. Khandelwal, Chief Cashier of the Sewla branch, also reported that the keys of cash safe, strong room kept by him in his purse, have also been stolen by the miscreants."
Part-time sweeper was not produced in enquiry to prove the charges and otherwise charge Nos. 1 & 4 are in regard to not placing the keys as per guileless and did not maintain the key register. The charge were found proved in ignorance to the report quoted above. The Chief Cashier kept the keys in his purse. He is shown to be joint custodian.
Learned Single Judge found that the bank failed to produce independent evidence to prove the charges as co-delinquent was produced to prove the charges.
The learned Single Judge further found that duty to close the currency chest was of the Branch manager and Assistant Manager (Cash) was the joint custodian. Thus, the non-appellant could not have been made responsible. The fact aforesaid is even coming from the report dated 11.11.1999 quoted above. The joint custodian was Chief Cashier.
Learned counsel for the appellants fairly admitted that the Branch Manager was also responsibility for safe custody of the Bank but on the day of occurrence, he left the Bank early, thus, non-appellants became incharge of the bank and responsible for all the affairs.
Learned counsel for the appellants was asked as to whether any evidence was produced to prove that Branch Manager left the bank early with reasons thereof. It was fairly conceded that no evidence was produced to prove that Branch Manager left the bank early and this fact could not have been proved by the Branch Manager himself being interested witness as he was also served with the charge-sheet and was even punished.
It is not case of re-appreciation of the finding of the Enquiry Officer by learned Single Judge. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants thus provides no assistance.
In view of the above, we find no reason to cause interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 piyush