JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of certtorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.5.1998 (Annexure-II) and has further prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and pay him all back wages and emoluments.
2. Heard Sri S.K. Yadav. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh, Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee as a messenger in the Hlndon Gramin Bank on the oral direction of the Manager. He was making entries in the pass books, ledgers, vouchers, etc. The petitioner was suspended by respondent (Chairman/Anushashnik Adhikari). Charge-sheet was issued on 9.9.1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by respondent No. 3, i.e., the Branch Manager. The petitioner was suspended for his Involvement in misappropriation of bank money and for having worked beyond his jurisdiction and for dereliction of his duties. Sri Anil Gautam, an officer of the rank of Branch Manager, was appointed as enquiry officer and Sudhir Sharma was appointed as presenting officer. The presenting officer Sri Sudhir Kumar in his report dated 27.8.1997 (Annexure-7) has presented before the enquiry officer in respect of the enquiry as summarised the charges, the documents, statements of the witnesses, date of witnesses, date of cross-examination and re-examination and has persuaded that the petitioner has mishandled and misappropriated the money of the bank for his selfishness act and his conduct was dubious and contrary to law and unauthorised which degraded the interest of the bank and his Integrity and honesty was doubtful. Therefore, the petitioner was penalised for the action in reference to the Regulations 17 and 19 of Hindon Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations. 1988. The enquiry officer concluded the same and submitted report on 18.12.1997 (Annexure-9) on the basis of documentary evidence, statements and admissions of the petitioner as well as statements of the witnesses and counter version of the petitioner and the enquiry officer has found that all the five charges have been proved against the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without Initiating any regular departmental proceeding against the petitioner and without changing the enquiry officer, the enquiry has been concluded without furnishing any document in support of the charges levelled against him.
5. The petitioner has alleged that his signature was obtained forcibly and respondent No. 3 with collusion of the enquiry officer manufactured a forged reply admitting the guilt on behalf of the petitioner. On coming to know the misleads of Sri Nem Singh. the Branch Manager, the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 19.10.1996 and 11.6.1997 to respondent No. 1/Chairman for change of enquiry officer and demanded documents and registers from the enquiry officer in reference to the letter dated 26.11.1996 and 20.2.1997 (Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition). It has further been contended that enquiry officer submitted the report recommending the removal of the petitioner without considering the reply dated 17.4.1998 (Annexure-10) accordingly the removal/dismissal order dated 6.5.1998 is Illegal. The appeal preferred before the respondent No. 4 against the above order was dismissed. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties.
6. The petitioner has reiterated the same contentions in the rejoinder-affidavit.
7. The relevant provisions of Hindon Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1988 provides :
"(17) Liability to abide by the regulations and orders.--Every officer or employee of the bank shall conform to and abide by these regulations and shall observe, comply with and obey all orders and directions which may from time to time be given to him by any person or persons under whose jurisdiction, superintendence or control he may for the time being be placed.
(19) Officer and employee to promote the bank's interest.--Every officer or employee shall serve the, bank honestly and faithfully, and shall use his utmost endeavours to promote the Interests of the bank and shall show courtesy and attention in all transactions and intercourse with the officers of Government and bank's constituents.
30 (3) The inquiry under this regulation and the procedure with the exception of the final order, may be delegated in case the person against whom proceedings are taken is an officer who is senior to such officer and in the case of an employee to any officer, for purposes of the Inquiry the officer or employee may not engage a legal practitioner."
8. According to the counter affidavit, the charges against the petitioner were not in connection with his duties as messenger, rather were commissions of acts beyond his duties and for misappropriation of the funds of the bank, which came in his hands as deposits of the clients to the bank because he had no duty to receive the funds from the clients and to make entries in their pass books without depositing the money with the cashier of the bank.
9. According to para 10 of counter-affidavit, the petitioner was a messenger in the bank as class-IV employee and his duties were that of a peon and not of a clerk. According to his own admission, in writing, he received the account from different customers on his own and made entries in their respective pass books and misappropriated the money. No senior officer was supposed to give direction to a class-IV employee to misappropriate funds. In para 11, it has been averred that the complaints were received from Om Sharma in S.B. Account No. 1195. Sukhblr Singh. S.B. Account No. 1639 and Devi Sharan and having R.D. Account No. 144 then the petitioner was suspended on 15.6.1996. The petitioner himself has admitted in writing regarding recovering the amount from the customers which he had later on deposited with Interest in the bank by his signing on the pay slip (Annexures-CA-5, 6 and 7 to the counter-affidavit). According to the paragraph 11, it was revealed that the petitioner had also pocketed the amounts relating to S.B. Account No. 1569 which he has admitted in writing on 15.7.1996 (Annexurc-8 to the counter-affidavit). All these admissions and documents produced before the enquiry officer during the enquiry, were examined. According to para 12 and para 26 of the counter-affidavit, the enquiry officer is much higher in rank than the petitioner and as such, he was competent to hold enquiry of the petitioner, therefore, any officer was competent to be appointed as enquiry officer in view of Section 30 (3) of services regulation quoted above. In para 15. It was asserted that the copies of all documents were supplied to the defence representative of the petitioner on 11.1.1997 which forms part of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer, the defence representative as also the management representative had made their endorsements in the enquiry proceedings about the supply of the copies of the documents and the verification of the copies with the originals by the defence representative. According to para 23, at the time of hearing of the appeal of the petitioner the deponent did not take part in the proceedings and left the meeting. The remaining members of the Board deliberated over the merits of the appeal and ordered for dismissal of the petitioner. In para 34, it was contended that a copy of the enquiry report was provided to the petitioner along with show cause notice dated 21.3.1998/2.4.1998 which he himself has filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The envelope containing the show cause notice and the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner with the covering letter dated 21.3.1998 but the same returned undelivered and therefore, it had to be sent again on 2.4.1998, extending time for the reply.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record and find .that the enquiry has been made on the basis of documentary evidence, statements, admissions made by the petitioner before the enquiry officer, who was duly appointed according to the relevant regulation of the bank. The petitioner has admitted his guilt and nothing is found in the enquiry report or in the appellate order which is in derogation to the regulation. While going through the records, I find that all the documents necessary and relevant in support of the charges were supplied to the petitioner and same were taken into consideration and on the basis of the documentary evidences, statements, admissions of the petitioner as well as of the witnesses and the cross-examination of the witnesses made on the specified date, time and at particular place, the enquiry report was conducted. It is, therefore, evident that the proper procedure has been adopted before submitting the enquiry report and, therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that the proper opportunity has not been afforded to him is negated as the enquiry report and dismissal order has been made in consonance to the principle of natural justice.
11. On behalf of respondent, it has been contended that in Disciplinary Authority v. N.B. Patnaik, 1996 (4) SCC 457, the Supreme Court has held that where the bank employee allowed overdrafts or passed cheques involving substantial amounts beyond his authority even if no loss has resulted to the bank from such act and in some instances it even yielded profit to the bank, the employee can yet be held guilty of misconduct.
12. In Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority, JT 1997 (3) SC 500, the bank employee concerned directed in the performance of the duties in making payment of loans without ensuring supply of implements of the loanees and deposit of adequate security from the dealers as a consequence of which the respondent bank was put to loss. The Supreme Court has held that the Court should not interfere in such a case, otherwise the banking business would be vitally affected.
13. In State Bank of India v. T.J. Paul, 1999 (4) SCC 759. the bank officer was charged for having sanctioned loan without adequate security and without prior approval/ratification from superior authorities which was contrary to the departmental instructions. The Supreme Court held that even though no actual loss was found proved the disciplinary action against the employee was justified and the dismissal order was valid, and even though there may not be actual loss, even likelihood of loss was enough to hold the employee guilty. The Supreme Court in this case has found that the High Court was not correct fn holding that the finding of the enquiry officer or disciplinary or appellate authority did not justify a finding of major misconduct. It may be noticed that this case had some peculiar facts. The appellate authority had come to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal was not warranted, and hence the punishment of removal was awarded though it was not one of the enumerated punishments under the relevant rules. In these special facts the Supreme Court had directed that a punishment other than the dismissal or removal should be given that decision cannot be taken to mean that a bank employee cannot be dismissed.
14. In Union of India v. Vishwa Mohan. 1998 (4) SCC 310, the Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal order while observing that in the banking business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee otherwise the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired.
15. In Municipal Committee v. Krishnan Behari, JT 1996 (3) SC 96, the Supreme Court held that in cases of financial irregularity even if the amount misappropriated is small, the act of misappropriation is relevant and there cannot be any punishment other than dismissal, and any sympathy shown in such a case is totally uncalled for and opposed to the public interest.
16. On behalf of the respondent, the reliance has been made on the judgment of this Court in Ram Pratap Sonkar v. Chairman and Managing Director. Allahabad Bank, 2000 (2) AWC 1333 ; 2000 (3) UPLBEC 1973 (DB), where the dismissal of Assistant Manager of Bank on the charges of serious financial irregularities and recklessness in conduct of number of transaction in dubious manner was not interfered with under Article 226 of Constitution.
17. It is not merely that the petitioner has made a simple human error but has acted operation regarding the bank operation and it is relevant to mention here that the bank operates on public confidence and hence greater strictness is required from bank employee as compared to the employees of other departments, otherwise the public will lose confidence in the bank.
18. In the present case the petitioner found guilty and the charges against him has been proved. It is. therefore, not proper for this Court to interfere in such cases. It is not a fit case to interfere under Article 226 Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Therefore. the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.