Dismissed

Vinod Kumar v. Deputy General Manger Canara Bank and Others

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2018WRIA/60316/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the contention that the impugned major punishment of compulsory retirement was perverse or unfair. The Court held that evidence established the petitioner forged the cheques and pursued their encashment, which was sufficient to establish guilt regardless of other illegally involved officers.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit; the punishment imposed by the bank was upheld.

Vinod Kumar Vs Deputy General Manger Canara Bank… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 60316 of 2005

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- Deputy General Manger, Canara Bank And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra,Jitan Tiwari,Ratnesh Kumar Pandey,Satya Prakash,V.K.Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Tarun Varma,H.S.Mishra,SC,Siddharth

¶6

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20.09.2004 passed by the Deputy General Manager/Punishing Authority of the Canara Bank, by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired after conclusion of full-fledged domestic inquiry. The said order was confirmed by the internal Appellate Authority of the bank by his order dated 17.06.2005.

¶9

Earlier, this writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 08.08.2014 on the following terms:

¶10

“The inquiry report is on record and contained its analysis and evidence and findings. The inquiry report reveals the allegation that the petitioner had approached one MW-6 for issuing the cheque book to third person on the basis of a request letter which had been issued. That is to say not on a requisition slip but on a letter. The cheque book was issued to one Ram Lal. The evidence does not reveal any clear finding that the petitioner was guilty of writing of any amount on the cheque or signing or forging the cheque. The handwriting expert who was examined has also not been able to say clearly that the writing on cheque was that of the delinquent employee. In the absence of recording any clear finding a major punishment has been imposed on the petitioner, which is not fair.

¶11

The matter clearly requires a thorough investigation. The major penalty imposed upon the petitioner is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. All the other officers of the Bank have been let off scot free. The petitioner has been made a escapegoat. The punishment imposed by the

¶12

¶13

authority is set aside by this Court. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration of the entire matter.

¶14

The matter on remand may be decided by the Bank within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before him.”

¶15

The bank carried the matter in Special Appeal Defective No. 1003 of 2014, which was decided by judgment dated 10.12.2014 whereby the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the matter was remitted for the decision afresh.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner is grossly perverse. Second, it has been submitted the petitioner has been singled out and a major punishment of compulsorily retirement has been awarded though he was merely a peon while the bank fraud, if any, had been committed by the officers of the bank who may have passed the disputed cheques and released payments beyond their administrative limits, in favour of strangers.

¶17

With respect to the first argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted that the petitioner was on leave when money was withdrawn from the joint account of Kamla Yadav and Sri Amar Singh Yadav. It has been next submitted, the application (against which the cheque book had been issued for the aforesaid account), was never produced by the bank. Alternatively, it has been submitted even if the petitioner may have played some role in issuance of the bank cheque book, it could not have led to the conclusion that he was involved in the misuse of the cheque leaves issued from such cheque book. Third, it has been submitted, there is no evidence to establish that the petitioner had withdrawn the amount against the disputed cheques inasmuch as the signatures of the payee 'Ram Lal' appearing on the obverse of the disputed cheque leaves have not

¶18

¶19

been found to be those made by the petitioner. Therefore, it was not established that the petitioner was the beneficiary of the fraud. Last, it has been submitted that admittedly, the cheque leaves had been passed by the bank officers beyond their administrative limits and, therefore, it was those officers who were guilty of the fraud and not the present petitioner. It is in this light that the second ground of challenge has been raised that the higher officers of the bank who were actually involved in the commission of fraud have been let off while the petitioner who was a peon has been unnecessarily penalised. Reference has been made to the various passages of the inquiry report as also other documents annexed with the affidavit in support of the present petition.

¶20

Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the bank would on the other hand submit there is no perversity in the punishment order inasmuch as though the factum of leave claimed by the petitioner may not be disputed, it is wholly irrelevant to the charge levelled on the petitioner in as much as that charge is not with respect to any official act done by the petitioner. Then on the basis of oral evidence led during the disciplinary proceedings (wherein the petitioner had also cross-examined the management witness), it was clearly established that the petitioner had in fact, got issued the cheque book for the joint account of Kamla Yadav Sri Amar Singh Yadav though he was neither the account holder of that account nor he had been authorised by the account holder to get issued such cheque book on her/his behalf. Then, in any case, it has been submitted that the handwriting on the face of the cheque leaves in question was duly established to be that of the petitioner. It clearly establishes the guilt of the petitioner. It face of such evidence, it was for the petitioner to have proved or established further fact to justify that such action was done bona fide or that he had been authorised to write such cheques by the

¶21

¶22

account holder. No such evidence was led. Next, it has been submitted that other persons who may have contributed to the commission of offence of illegal withdrawals from a bank account holder would be of no consequence insofar as disciplinary proceedings had been concluded against the petitioner on the basis of material and evidence that was proven against him. The fact that another guilty person may not have been punished or may have remained from being punished cannot be a factor that may weigh in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, to test the ground of perversity, it is to be seen whether there exists any evidence on the basis of which, a conclusion of guilt could be drawn against the petitioner. The charge levelled against the petitioner was of having fraudulently encashed four cheque nos. 587571, 587572, 587573 and 587574 for amounts Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively from the joint account of one Smt. Kamla Yadav and Sri Amar Singh Yadav.

¶24

During the domestic inquiry, it stood established on the basis of oral and documentary evidence that in the first place, the petitioner had got issued the cheque book for the account from which, the unauthorised withdrawals were made on the strength of cheque leaves issued from such cheque book. While, it may be true that the application for issuance of such cheque book may not have been found on record at the time of inquiry, yet, the subsequent facts of mis-utilisation of cheque itself would render the finding on this issue partially irrelevant. Even if it were to be assumed that the petitioner was not directly involved in issuance of the disputed cheque book, the most material aspect to be examined for the purpose of present case would remain the

¶25

¶26

identity of the handwriting on the face of the four disputed cheques and the other relevant evidence that may establish the identity of the person who was/were the beneficiary of the fraudulent withdrawals.

¶27

In this regard, the evidence that has been considered by the disciplinary authority (both oral evidence and the documentary), appears to be consistent. The handwriting expert clearly established the fact that the handwriting on the face of the cheque leaves was that of the petitioner. In fact, to that extent, the petitioner appears to be reconciled to that finding inasmuch as the crux of the submission advanced both before the disciplinary proceedings and before this Court is that the signature 'Ramlal' appearing on the obverse of the cheque leaves was not proven to be that of the petitioner. In as much as it was the petitioner who wrote those cheques (on the face) and thereafter pursued the same for encashment by taking those cheques to different officers and ultimately the same were encashed, at his instance, the objection raised is irrelevant to test the ground of perversity in the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner.

¶28

Assuming that the petitioner had not made signature of 'Ram Lal', still, the facts that the petitioner admittedly was an employee of the bank; it stood proved that he had pursued encashment of the aforesaid four cheques after writing them though he had no connection with the bank account from which, the withdrawal was made and; admittedly, he had not been authorised on behalf of the account holder, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioner nor action taken against him. The identity of the signature 'Ramlal' appearing on the obverse of those cheque leaves, may have been relevant for the bank, in its own larger interests and also in criminal investigation. However, for reason

¶29

¶30

noted above, it remains extraneous to test the perversity of finding of guilt returned against the petitioner.

¶31

Examined thus, the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority are not found to be perverse. These are based on material and evidence that exists on record. Further, doubts that are being raised are not such as may render the findings perverse or grossly illegal.

¶32

As to the other plea that the higher officers of the bank have been let allowed to escape while the petitioner has been penalised can never be a fact to consider in such a proceeding where the guilt of the petitioner - a bank employee, in having forged the cheques and having pursued payments thereunder stood established. It may have remained open to the petitioner to name other persons who may have involved in the commission of offence and would remain a matter to be determined by the bank authority or any appropriate criminal proceedings. However, no infirmity can be set up by the petitioner in such facts.

¶33

Consequently, the present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed . No order as to costs

¶34

Order Date :- 2.11.2018 Abhilash

Vinod Kumar v. Deputy General Manger Canara Bank and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. Deputy General Manger Canara Bank and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India Thru. G.M.

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India Thru. G.M.

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India Thru. G.M.

Narvadeshwar Singh Vs State of Up through Secy. Basic Education Up at Lko. and Ors.

Virendra Singh Rana Vs Iffco Tokiyo General Insruance Co. and 2 Others

M/S Jai Mata Ji Enterprises and Transport Co. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax