Dismissed

Chintamani Choudhary v. Vananchal Gramin Bank Sponsered By State Bank Of India And Ors.

Jharkhand HC12 Jun 2023WPC/404/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a superannuated Bank employee challenging dismissal and denial of pension after departmental enquiry. Court held that deemed service continues for enquiry purposes and dismissed the petition finding no illegality or disproportionate punishment.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners prayer for quashing the dismissal order and denial of pension was dismissed.

Chintamani Choudhary Vs Vananchal Gramin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

WP(S) No. 404 of 2016

¶2

(An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

¶3

Chintamani Choudhary …. Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

Vananchal Gramin Bank through its Board of Directors & Appellate Authority, Head Office at Dumka.

¶6

The Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Head Office at Dumka.

¶7

The General Manager (B&D), Vananchal Gramin Bank, Head Office at Dumka.

¶8

The Manager (Vigilance), Vananchal Gramin Bank, Head Office at Dumka.

¶9

The Enquiry Officer, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Head Office at Dumka.

¶10

The Regional Manager, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Region-II, P.O. Sarouni, Godda. ….Respondents.

¶11

For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Vikas Pandey and Janak Kr. Mishra, Advocates. For the Respondent(s) : None

¶12

PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J .

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

C.A.V. on: 01.03.2023 Pronounced on: 12/06/2023

¶15

Order No. 19: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following

¶16

relief(s):-

¶17

(a) For quashing the appellate order dated 14.10.2015 (Annexure-13/1) which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.10.2015, whereby the Appellate Authority uphold the award of punishment contained in letter No. HO/Vig/50/2015-16 dated 25.6.2015 (Annexure-11), whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment of dismissal from service.

¶18

(b) For quashing the Award of punishment as contained in Letter No. HO/Vig/50/2015-16 dated 25.6.2015 (Annexure11), passed by the Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of dismissal from service.

¶19

(c) For a direction upon the respondent Bank to pay back wages/salary for the period the petitioner was out of service due to said penalty order of dismissal from service.

¶20

(d) For quashing the letter No. ROH/HR/151/2018-19 dated 25.3.2019(Annexure-20) whereby the petitioner was intimated that as per Regulation-IV, Para 20 of Vananchal Gramin Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018, the petitioner is not entitled for pension.

¶21

The petitioner was appointed as Branch Manager of Vananchal Gramin Bank, Sarouni Branch, Godda on 8.6.2013.The allegation of serious irregularities and illegality in advances (loan), in respect of failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity was levelled against the petitioner, thus

¶22

¶23

he was suspended. There was serious allegation against the petitioner for sanctioning and disbursement of 274 fake loans under JLNSM Scheme, without complying “KYC” norms. Identity and address proof of the persons, to whom the loans were disbursed, were manipulated and tampered with and not properly verified with originals. The borrowers were traceless and with false address the loan accounts were created, even the assets were not created against the loan accounts. The petitioner did not conduct Pre-sanction and post disbursement survey. Photographs and signature of the borrowers were also not verified by the petitioner; even the photographs and KYC of the guarantors were also not taken. It was detected that an amount of Rs.15,84,000/- in respect of 66 loan accounts was transferred to Account No. 30971236904 which is the account of one M/s S.G. Enterprises. The said amount was disbursed without ascertaining the actual delivery of assets created out of the loan amount. Similar was the case in respect of disbursement of 208 loan accounts amounting to Rs.49,92,000/- wherein the amount was transferred in Account No. 1632050000471 of M/s S.G. Enterprises, maintained by proprietor of Mobile Repairing Shop Sri Sanjay Kumar Rakshit without ascertaining the actual delivery of assets created out of the loan amount. The reason for remittance of loan amounts was also not ascertained by the petitioner. There were several other irregularities and illegalities committed by the petitioner. The details of the aforesaid is mentioned in the Charge-sheet (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), which runs as under:-

¶24

1. You have sanctioned and disbursed 274 loan accounts under JLNSM scheme without complying KYC norms. ID & address proof were manipulated/tampered with and not properly verified with originals.

¶25

2. Borrowers are traceless/not found in the given address of document, as per the written & verbal statement of villagers the listed borrowers are inhabitant of other village. That means loan accounts were opened with false address. Assets not created out of the loan amount.

¶26

3. You have not conducted Pre-sanction and post disbursement survey and reports and enclosed with the documents.

¶27

4. Photographs and signature of borrowers not verified by you in ail loan applications sanctioned by you.

¶28

5. Particulars of borrowers and guarantors not taken/enclosed with all loan documents.

¶29

6. KYC and photograph of guarantors not taken/enclosed with the documents. You have not ascertained the identity of person signing the loan security document.

¶30

7. You have not taken original quotation of the supplier. Xerox copies enclosed with documents are not signed by borrower in all cases.

¶31

8. Installation certificate not signed by the representative of supplier/service provider in all cases.

¶32

9. You have disbursed Rs.15,84,000/- in 66 loan

¶33

¶34

accounts(Annexure-Part “C” enclosed) by means of NEFT to A/C No. 30971236904 IFSC No. SBIN 0001194 Mobile No.7870214208 account of M/S S.G. Enterprises maintained at Main Road Branch Ranchi without ascertaining the actual delivery of asset created out of the loan amount.

¶35

10. You have disbursed Rs.49,92,000/- in 208 loan accounts. (Annexure Part “D” enclosed) by means of NEFT to A/C No. 1632050000471 IFSC No. UTIBOGDAK46 Mobile No. 7870214208 account of M/s. G. Enterprises maintained by Proprietor of Mobile repairing shop Sri Sanjay Kumar Rakshit of Saroni village at United Bank of India Godda Branch without ascertaining the actual delivery of assets created out of the loan amount. You have also not ascertained the reason for remittance (NEFT) of loan amount in the two different Bank/Branch accounts of different places from the proprietor of M/S S. G. Enterprises, Ranchi.

¶36

11. All debit and credit vouchers of loan accounts are prepared by outsider (other than Bank Staff).

¶37

12. You have remitted the loan amount by means of NEFT without express instructions of proprietor of M/S S.G Enterprises, Ranchi.

¶38

13. You have released the loan amount without Bills/Invoices in all cases.

¶39

14. You have submitted BMDP return for 94 A/Cs only out of 274/Cs sanctioned by you. This was done by you to conceal your malpractices.

¶40

15. Most of loan accounts and Savings Bank Accounts opened simultaneously, but Pass book of SB accounts still undelivered. That means SB accounts were also opened with false address.

¶41

16. There are many other irregularities which are mentioned in individual A/Cs of Annexure-Part “C” and Part “D”.

¶42

17. Your Budget for the year 2013-14 exceeded with Rs.20.14 lacs and not taken the controllers approval.

¶43

On the aforesaid allegation the petitioner was departmentally proceeded against and he denied the said charge by filing a reply. In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated but the Bank informed him that as per Chapter-IV, Regulation 45(3)(4) of the Vananchal Gramin Bank Officer and Employees Service Regulation 2010 the petitioner will be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry process and submitted enquiry report, wherein the charges were found to be proved. The enquiry report was served to the petitioner to which, the petitioner replied in details.

¶44

The Disciplinary Authority vide reasoned order dated 26.5.2015 inflicted punishment upon the petitioner forfeiting the gratuity amount, leave salary and other dues. Further the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was also dismissed. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was

¶45

¶46

informed that he was not entitled for pension.

¶47

Challenging the impugned order of dismissal, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had already superannuated from service, the respondent cannot passed the order of dismissal from his service. He further submitted that the petitioner worked with integrity. As per him, all the accounts were opened after obtaining KYC documents and the customers details were also verified. The enquiry, according to him, is based on vague evidence as the department has failed to prove the charges leveled against him. He further submitted that there is no material to suggest that no pre-sanction enquiry was conducted and the opinion of the Enquiry Officer is not based on the facts and evidence produced during the enquiry, rather he has formed an opinion by his own, pre-judging that the petitioner has committed misconduct. As per him, withholding of pension is contrary to the law.

¶48

The respondent authorities have filed written arguments stating therein that the petitioner, being a Bank employee, should have worked with utmost integrity, but in the instant case, admittedly, he had failed to do so. There are rules, which permits the Bank to continue with departmental proceeding even after superannuation of a bank employee. It is further mentioned in the written argument that this Court cannot act an Appellate Court when it is established that all the procedures have been followed and there is no violation of principle of natural justice. Since the offence is grave, the punishment is prerogative of the employer which cannot be interfered with.

¶49

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent authorities, I find the allegation that the petitioner being the Bank Manager committed serious financial irregularities and illegalities in disbursement of loan. After proper departmental enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service. As per the petitioner, he could not have been dismissed from service as he already superannuated. It is not disputed that the petitioner had already superannuated during pendency of the departmental enquiry. Normally with the superannuation, the relationship of employer and employee ceases, but in the instant case, the situation is different. There is a statutory provision as contained in Chapter-IV, Regulation 45(3)(4) of the Vananchal Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2010, which provides that the delinquent will be deemed to be in service for the purpose of enquiry. The proviso reads as under;

¶50

(2) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceeding has been initiated shall cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceeding shall continue as if he was in service until the

¶51

¶52

proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof.

¶53

(3) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceedings has been initiated shall not receive any pay and/or allowances after the date of superannuation and also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceeding is completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to contributory Provident Fund(CPF).

¶54

When there is statutory provision of deemed continuation of service only for the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not have been punished. I find no illegality in continuation of departmental proceeding and punishing the petitioner.

¶55

The petitioner is challenging the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specially in judicial review, scope of interference by this Court in a departmental proceeding is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 at paragraph 37 , thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led before the enquiry officer. By referring to judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao , reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the High Court to review on the findings and arrive at a different decision. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well settled that the High Court can interfere amongst other, only when the departmental authority has acted against the principles of natural justice or where the findings are based on no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules provided.

¶56

In this case I find that the petitioner was a Bank Manager and the charge against him is grave that he had not discharged his duties with utmost integrity and honesty. There is a charge of financial illegality. When the charge is of dishonesty that too against a Bank Manager, upon whom the customers entrusted their money in good faith, the Court ordinarily should not review the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.

¶57

Further, in review of punishment, it has to be seen whether the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India V. Bachan Prasad Lall , reported in (2022) 2 SCC 358 , in paragraph-12, has held as under;

¶58

¶59

“12. In our considered view, looking into seriousness of the nature of allegations leveled against the respondent employee, the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon him in no manner could be said to be shockingly disproportionate which would have required to be interfered with by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the 1947 Act. At the same time, merely because the employee stood superannuated in the meanwhile, will not absolve him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties and looking into the nature of misconduct, which he had committed, he was not entitled for any indulgence. The bank employee always holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are the sine qua non but it would never be advisable to deal with such matters leniently.”

¶60

In this case, I find that the punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. The Appellate Authority has considered all these aspects and passed a reasoned order. I further find that there is no procedural irregularity and illegality in conducting and concluding the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. 13 I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed .

¶61

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Dated:12/06/2023. NAFR: Anu/- Cp2

¶62

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Chintamani Choudhary v. Vananchal Gramin Bank Sponsered By State Bank Of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintamani Choudhary v. Vananchal Gramin Bank Sponsered By State Bank Of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Narayan Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Akhtar Shekh Alias Akhtar Shekh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Revenue Registration and Land Reforms Deptt

Poli Devi Vs Panchayat Samiti Bundu

Ajit Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Tabbassum Vs the State of Jharkhand

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Represented through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs Smt Asha Devi and Ors.