Dismissed

Shiv Charan v. Bank of India and Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024WRIA/3867/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a major penalty of stoppage of increments imposed on a bank employee for misutilization of loans and leave fare concession. The Court held that the disciplinary inquiry was fair, the petitioner failed to dispel charges despite opportunity, and no judicial interference was warranted despite absence of documentary replies. The petition f

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the punishment order is dismissed; parties to bear their own cost.

Shiv Charan Vs Bank of India and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55078

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3867 of 1996

¶4

Petitioner :- Shiv Charan Respondent :- Bank Of India And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- S.M.K.Choudhary,Amit Srivastava,Shyam Lal Misra,Virendra Prasad

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- Lalit Shukla

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Lalit Shukla learned counsel for opposite parties.

¶9

Petition has been filed challenging punishment order dated 27th May, 1995 whereby petitioner has been visited with major penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect. Also under challenge is the appellate order dated 2nd September, 1995.

¶10

It has been submitted that petitioner while in service as Cashcum-Account Clerks with the bank was served with charge sheet dated 2nd July, 1993 containing four charges with charge No.1 pertaining to misuse of leave fare concession facility, charge No.2 regarding alleged misutilization of housing loan, charge No.3 pertaining to misutilization of vehicle loan and charge No.4 pertaining of misutilization of consumer loan.

¶11

It is submitted that aforesaid charge sheet was replied to by petitioner whereafter an inquiry was instituted by opposite parties culminating in inquiry report dated 7th January, 1990 in which petitioner was found guilty of charges 1,2 and 4 while exonerating him from charge No.3 whereafter the impugned punishment order was passed which was challenged in appeal, which has also been rejected.

¶12

It has been submitted that the disciplinary as well as appellate authority have failed to consider relevant material on record

¶13

while indicating establishment of charges levelled against him. It is submitted that authorities have also lost sight of the fact that entire amount of loan had been deposited except for housing loan for which regular deductions from monthly salary were also being made due to which there was no financial loss caused to bank. He has also submitted that the management has failed to prove charges levelled against petitioner since no reliable witness or official was produced on behalf of bank to establish charges levelled against him. It is also submitted that authorities have failed to consider that irregularities were not on account of any deliberate or intentional act of the petitioner but were due to extenuating circumstances only.

¶14

Learned counsel for opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that there is absolutely no allegation made in the petition that no ample opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner. It is submitted that in fact as would be evident from a perusal of the inquiry report that principles of natural justice were adhered to and ample opportunity was provided to petitioner to produce his evidence. It is submitted that a perusal of charge sheet will also indicate that charges levelled against petitioner were specific as has been indicated. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others versus Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612 to buttress his submissions that no judicial interference is warranted only on account of the fact that two views are possible when compliance has been made in inquiry proceedings with regard to principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that service in the banking sector is particularly on the basis of trust and integrity which has not been adhered to by petitioner.

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned

¶16

counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that neither reply nor memorandum of appeal submitted by petitioner are on record. Therefore the stand of petitioner before the disciplinary authorities is to be seen in the context indicated in the punishment order itself.

¶17

A perusal of the inquiry report reveals the fact that the charge No.1 has been discussed in detail along with copies of journey tickets submitted by petitioner. The inquiry officer has clearly recorded a finding that while journey is said to have been performed from Shahjahanpur to Delhi on 19th May, 1989, the tickets submitted by petitioner pertained to 4th July, 1989. It has also been recorded that the amount as claimed by petitioner did not match with the tickets which were produced by him and were in excess thereof. It is therefore clear that an opportunity has been provided to petitioner to submit evidence to dispel the charge no.1 levelled against him.

¶18

Similarly while adverting to charge No.2, the inquiry officer has clearly recorded a finding that although loan was taken for construction of a house, in fact no construction or earth filling work had been done on the plot indicated by petitioner. The inquiry report does not indicate any material supplied by petitioner to indicate that construction activity in fact was undertaken by petitioner as a consequence of housing loan extended to him.

¶19

The petitioner was exonerated regarding charge No.3 but charge No.4 also stood proved to the effect that loan was advanced to petitioner for purchasing a colour T.V. whereas he purchased a black and white T.V.

¶20

A perusal of the entire aspect does not indicate any material having been supplied by petitioner to dispel the charges levelled against him. Although the burden of proof can not entirely be

¶21

placed on the delinquent employee but once charges pertained to availing of leave, fare concession and of not having constructed a house despite having availed of a loan for the same, the nature of charge itself indicates that it was only upon the petitioner to have dispelled such charges by production of relevant journey tickets and to have indicated that construction of a house in fact was carried out in pursuance of housing loan. Such a course of action having not been undertaken by the petitioner can not provide him with any benefit at all.

¶22

Although a ground has been taken that impugned orders have been passed against the material on record, no such material could be indicated which was relevant and germane for deciding the charges and were not taken into consideration by the authorities. Certain documents have been brought on record of this petition by means of a supplementary affidavit but it is admitted that such documents were not produced during inquiry proceedings.

¶23

In view thereof, no cognizance of such documentary evidence can be taken by this Court which had not been produced in the inquiry proceedings.

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner was unable to demonstrate any violation of principles of natural justice or deviation from procedure were required to be followed by the authorities while conducting the inquiry against him.

¶25

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajai Kumar Srivastava (supra) has clearly held as follows:-

¶26

"24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the

¶27

mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

¶28

27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

¶29

38. Yet again, in Sawarn Singh v. State of Punjab [Sawarn Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 2 SCC 868 : AIR 1976 SC 232] , this Court held: (SCC p. 873, para 19)

¶30

“ 19. In view of this, the deficiency or reference to some irrelevant matters in the order of the Commissioner, had not prejudiced the decision of the case on merits either at the appellate or revisional stage. There is authority for the proposition that where the order of a domestic tribunal makes reference to several grounds, some relevant and existent, and others irrelevant and non-existent, the order will be sustained if the Court is satisfied that the authority would have passed the order on the basis of the relevant and existing grounds, and the exclusion of irrelevant or nonexisting grounds could not have affected the ultimate decision (see State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779] ).”

¶31

42. Before we conclude, we need to emphasise that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this additional reason, we are of the opinion that the

¶32

High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent dated 24-7-1999 confirmed in departmental appeal by order dated 15-11-1999. "

¶33

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that the disciplinary inquiry has been conducted after following due process and principles of natural justice providing ample opportunity to petitioner to produce evidence and defence to dispel the charges levelled against him. Such a benefit having not been availed of by petitioner, he cannot be granted any benefit.

¶34

The impugned order of punishment has also considered the findings of the inquiry committee and has thereafter imposed the punishment levelled against petitioner. The mere fact that no financial loss may have been caused to bank concerned since deductions from petitioner's salary were being made would not be ample ground to interfere in the impugned orders particularly where charges pertaining to misutilization of funds have been made out.

¶35

For the aforesaid reasoning this Court does not find any occasion to interfere in the appellate order as well.

¶36

In view of discussions made herein above, the petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶37

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 prabhat

¶38

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Charan v. Bank of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Charan v. Bank of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pinky Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Sajivan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Nagar Vikas, Lko. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Chaturvedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Devlpt. Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Rajendra Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication New Delhi and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar Gupta vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others