The High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal against compulsory retirement imposed on a bank employee for misappropriation of funds from two customers.
The intra-court appeal was dismissed upholding the compulsory retirement order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010175012016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA 375/2016
1:SRI RAMANI MEDHI S/O LT. ABHI MEDHI R/O DURGASOROVAR SANKAR MADHAB PATH P.O. BHARALUMUKH P.S. JALUKBARI GUWAHATI - 781009.
VERSUS
1:ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK and 2 ORS REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI - 781005.
2:THE CHAIRMAN and DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK G.S. ROAD BHANGARH GUWAHATI - 781005.
3:BOAD OF DIRECTORS-CUMAPPELLATE AUTHORITY ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI - 781005
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A D CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : MS.N MODI
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
17.5.2018 (Ajit Singh, C.J.)
Mr.SN Sarma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. H Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr.S Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents.
This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 19.7.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No.2492/2015.
The appellant, while serving as Branch Manager at Rangia Branch of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, was served with an Article of charge pertaining to serious allegation against him. In the Article of charge, two charges were levelled against him. The first charge was that on 22.10.2007, he received an amount of Rs.1685/- which was deposited by one Shri Basistha Rajbanshi towards mortgage charge for the creation of equitable mortgage of his land, but he did not deposit that amount into bank’s cash account either on the next working day or even thereafter. Instead, he deposited the amount on 16.8.2008 only when misappropriation by him was detected. Likewise, second charge was in respect of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.22,400/- which Sankardev Sishu Niketan had deposited on 12.1.2008 in its general fund account. The appellant did not deposit the said amount also into bank’s cash account and deposited it as late as on 22.1.2009 when misappropriation was detected.
On the aforesaid charges, the appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings
Page No.# 3/4
wherein he was given full opportunity to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer in his report found both the charges proved against the appellant. The disciplinary authority, therefore, vide order dated 5.12.2012, imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant in terms of Service Regulations of 2006. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal on the plea that he could not deposit the amount due to excessive work-load and he never intended to cause misappropriation of the same. The Appellate Authority disagreed with the appellant and dismissed his appeal vide order dated 28.2.2013. The appellant then filed WP(C) No.2492/2015, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
The main thrust of argument of the appellant is that he could not deposit the amount into bank’s cash account due to work pressure and considering the fact that he has ultimately deposited the amount, the punishment of compulsory retirement, which is shockingly disproportionate, be interfered. As seen above, in the disciplinary proceedings, the charges against him of misappropriation of amount on two occasions have been duly proved in a well conducted enquiry. The appellant deposited the amount only when misappropriation by him was detected. On first occasion, the appellant deposited the misappropriated amount after 9 months of receiving that amount from Basistha Rajbangshi and in the second occasion, he deposited the misappropriated amount after one year of receiving that amount from Sankardev Sishu Niketan. Therefore, his plea that he could not deposit the amount due to work pressure is wholly unacceptable. As regards punishment, the Supreme Court in Narendra Nath Bhalla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 775 has held that in a case of misappropriation, mere repayment of money by an employee would not absolve him of the serious charge. The Supreme Court has also held that in such cases, punishment of dismissal is not harsh. Earlier also in Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, (2006) 10 SCC 572, the Supreme Court in a case of misappropriation of customer’s money without causing loss to the bank held that punishment of removal imposed on a bank employee was not improper.
Apparently, in the case at hand, the bank has lost confidence in the appellant, who, as a Bank Officer, was expected to deal with the money of depositors and customers with utmost honesty, devotion and diligent, which he failed to do so. We, therefore, find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the bank’s decision of compulsorily retiring the appellant.
Page No.# 4/4
The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/Sd/JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the compulsion retirement order imposed on a bank employee for misappropriation of funds.
Whether repayment of misappropriated amounts due to work pressure absolves the employee from punishment of compulsory retirement.
Whether compulsory retirement is a proportionate punishment for misappropriation of customer deposits by a branch manager.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narendra Nath Bhalla vs. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶23
Narendra Nath Bhalla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 775 · Who else cites this
Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of CommerceRelied on¶23
Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, (2006) 10 SCC 572 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramani Medhi
Assam Gramin Vikash Bank
Ajit Singh
Suman Shyam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
