Writ petition filed by wife of a dismissed SBI employee challenging disciplinary action for embezzlement. Court rejected plea for leniency based on refund, holding that misconduct by a fiduciary bank employee warrants dismissal regardless of ultimate loss to the bank.
Writ petition dismissed; parties to bear own costs.
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.# 1/6
GAHC010006062010
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 3651/2010
1:SMTI. CHENU BORO
W/O AROBINDA BORO R/O GANDHAMOW, P.O. BANGSAR, DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE BANK OF INDIA and ORS LOCAL HEAD OFFICE ,G.S.ROAD, DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, GHY-6
3:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, BHANGAGARH, GHY- 5.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P KATAKI
MRS. S. KHATANIAR.
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S S SHARMA
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
JUDGMENT
Date : 13-02-2018
Heard Mr. P. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent State Bank of India (SBI) and their officers are represented by Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned senior counsel.
Page No.# 2/6
“……………………………… ..
i) You had withdrawn a total amount of Rs,2,32,000/- (Rupees two lacs thirty two thousand only) from the Savings Bank Account No.01190006802, pertaining to Smt. Jamuna Boro, maintained at our Dadara Branch on different dates during the period from 08/06/2006 to 23/11/2006 fraudulently and had misappropriated the amount.
ii) While you had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the above account on 08/06/2006 by making four (4) entries of Rs.50,000/each in the system without any withdrawal slip (debit voucher), you had made the following transactions in the account by preparing vouchers (withdrawal slips) as well as deposit vouchers and putting through the same in the system and embezzled another amount of Rs.32,000/- without the knowledge of the account holder:
| Date of transaction |
Debits (Rs.) | Credits (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| 09.08.2006 | 10,000.00 | - |
| 17.08.2006 | 5,000.00 | - |
| 06.09.2006 | - | 15,000.00 |
| 06.09.2006 | 20,000.00 | - |
| 14.09.2006 | 5,000.00 | - |
| 18.09.2006 | 2,000.00 | - |
| 09.10.2006 | 2,000.00 | - |
| 11.10.2006 | - | 22,000.00 |
Page No.# 3/6
| 11.10.2006 | 25,000.00 | - |
|---|---|---|
| 07.11.2006 | - | 25,000.00 |
| 07.11.2006 | - | 5,000.00 |
| 07.11.2006 | 30,000.00 | - |
| 23.11.2006 | - | 30,000.00 |
| 23.11.2006 | 30,000.00 | - |
iii) You had withdrawn an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) fraudulently from the SB Account No.01190006802 of Smt. Jamuna Boro, maintained at the Branch on 07/11/2006. While updating the passbook Shri Madhav Boro, son of Smt. Jamuna Boro, on 23.11.2005 had noticed the above debit entry and brought it to your notice, you had immediately prepared a credit voucher of Rs.30,000/- and entered it in the system and got the passbook updated and showed it to Shri Boro stating that the amount was erroneously debited to the above account which you had rectified. But after his departure, you had again debited the account with Rs.30,000/- by preparing a fictitious withdrawal slip. Thus you had misused the power delegated to you by the Bank as Single Window Operator.
….................................”
6.1. Challenging the discliplinary action, the learned counsel Mr. P. Kataki points out
Page No.# 4/6
that the money withdrawn from the Bank Account of the complainant Jamuna Boro, was returned by the delinquent and accordingly, he submits that no loss was caused to either the complainant or the Bank. On this basis, the plea for lesser punishment, is made by the petitioner’s lawyer.
6.2. Referring to the refund of the sum in the complainant’s account, within few months, Mr. Kataki submits that such case of temporary misappropriation deserves lenient treatment and it is thus argued that the harsh punishment of dismissal is not warranted, in such cases.
6.3. As the complainant herself withdrew the complaint after refund of the money by the delinquent, the petitioner’s lawyer submits that exoneration of the delinquent should be considered as he was forgiven even by the complainant.
7.1. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel Mr. S.S. Sharma points out that the delinquent as the Senior Assistant at the Dadara Branch of the SBI had misappropriated money through illegal manipulation of the SB Account No.01190006802, of an illiterate widow Jamuna Boro and such embezzlement of money by a Bank employee can hardly be treated leniently. He also points out that the misappropriated sum was credited in the customer's account only after she made the complaint on 21.12.2006.
7.2. The learned senior counsel submits that the Bank’s employees are occupying position of trust and therefore, they are expected to display greater degree of integrity in dealing with the customers’ accounts. Referring to the serious charge of embezzlement from the Bank account, through a series of transactions, without the knowledge of the customer, Mr. Sharma argues that the punishment of dismissal was the deserved penalty for the serious misconduct.
7.3. The response of the delinquent before the Inquiry Officer, against the question Nos.12 & 13 are read by the Bank’s lawyer to point out that the delinquent admitted that he withdrew Rs.2,32,000/-, on different dates from the Bank Account of the complainant Jamuna Boro and this amount was misappropriated to purchase land. Eventually when the complaint was filed by the account holder on 21.12.2006, the misappropriated sum was refunded in two installments on 23.12.2006 and 24.12.2006, after sale of that very asset purchased with the misappropriated sum. On this basis, the Bank’s lawyer argues that this is not a case for interference of the Writ Court.
Page No.# 5/6
Page No.# 6/6
misconduct, as was held by the Supreme Court in Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of Commerece, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572. Therefore, I see no scope to order for a lenient punishment, for the delinquent in the present matter.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a bank employee who misappropriated funds can claim exoneration merely because the amount was refunded after the complaint was filed.
Whether lenient punishment in dismissal proceedings is justified when the employee holds a position of trust involving fiduciary duties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC vs. Hoti LalRelied on¶42
Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC vs. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605 · Who else cites this
Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of CommereceRelied on¶47
Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of Commerece, (2006) 10 SCC 572 · Who else cites this
SMTI. CHENU BORO W/O AROBINDA BORO
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
