A dismissed bank officer challenged disciplinary orders over unauthorized ATM reversal transactions of Rs.2,25,000 at his branch. Having admitted the misconduct during enquiry and made good the amount, he argued disproportionality. The court held the fiduciary breach justified dismissal and refused leniency.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.40739 OF 2012 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
SRI D J MAHESH S/O D JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS EARLIER WORKING AS OFFICER IN JMG SCALE-1 IN CANARA BANK SINCE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM SERVICE AND R/A NO.354/H 1 FLOOR, 9TH ‘J’ MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040 .
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K. ANANDARAMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CANARA BANK A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.112, J C ROAD BANGALORE 560002.
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.UDAYA SHANKAR RAI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.BLCM/DAC/3521/2020 DATED 07.04.2010 VIDE (ANNX-G) PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY; ORDER DATED 17.07.2010 VIDE (ANNX-K) PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ORDER NO.IRS:DP:BLCM:5162:2010:SSN DATED 31.12.2010 VIDE (ANNX-M) PASSED BY THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY AND REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH BACK WAGES AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING INCREMENTS SENIORITY, PROMOTIONS ETC AS IF THE ORDER OF PUNISHMENT WAS NEVER IN EXISTENCE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.04.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner who is an employee of the respondent-Bank who has been inflicted with penalty of dismissal from service.
3
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.
“I wish to state the following :-
4
1. I have transacted 21 ATM Transactions from 0508-2009 to 07-11-2009 Amounting to Rs.2,25,000/(details as per Annexure) In this regard I have not maintained any register or slips.
I agree that the above transactions have done by me and no authorization was required for the above (ATM 50) Transactions.
2. I am maintaining the following Accounts at Cantonment Branch only)
1) OD DPN 0404 254 00 86260D.
2) OD Serial 0404 252 00 8290.
3. Other than What stated in Point No.1 (ATM 50)I have not done any using Transactions during my service and all the transactions are genuine in nature.
4. Other than ATM 50 Transactions I done the transactions which pertains to loan borrowed sum other institutions and SPF/SWF Renewals.
I accept the (ATM 50 Renewal) transactions done by me and I m remitting the amount transacted wrongly
5
by using (ATM 50) option and crediting to my account.
I understand that Branches Transferred Rs.40,000/on 21-11-2009 from my SB A/c and credited to OD Account No.0404 254 8626. I authorize the Transaction done by the Branch.
Now I am remitting Rs.1 lakh (24-11-2009) and balance amount of Rs.85,000/- will be reimbursed within 2-3 days The amount of Rs.1 lakh was drawn by me.
The above ATM 50 transactions were put by me only and no other Bank officials are involved in this, and also out siders.
Apar from the above I am having DPN loan solar water heater loan and car loan at Cantonment Branch only.
Apart from the above I am a CO-borrower for the education loan of any Daughter availed through Raja Rajeshwari Branch.
The credits of dated 13-02-2008 & 21-02-2008 in my OD Account No.8290 pertains to outside borrowings by me.”
6
“IA to CSO: Would you like to make any submission with regard to allegations made against you, other than what has come on record during the course of the enquiry.
CSO: I have already explained in detail vide my letter dt 5/12 /2009 addressed to HRM Section CO Bangalore (M) with regard to the circumstances under which the transactions done by me and I have made good the entire amount involved RS 2,25,000/ immediately after my suspension. Among other departments, I was also handling other related ATM transactions while working at cantonment branch as part of my duties and KRA's. I have worked with sincerity and dedication and I have never made such transactions so far except the said ATM reversal through ATM 50 options. I have done the said transactions to meet out side borrowings/credit card commitments, which I should not have done. Now, I totally cleared all my out side borrowings and my credit cards have been cancelled by clearing the dues. Presently, myself and my family members are
7
at cross road for small mistake committed by me and I realized the mistake. I will be totally a reformed and dedicated officer of the Bank. I only need sympathy, particularly for my family by pardoning my action and re instating me in the services of the Bank by rendering justice.”
(emphasis supplied)
8
imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of petitioner’s transgressions. This Court has given its anxious consideration as to whether the penalty of dismissal inflicted by the Management warrants interference at the hands of this Court. While dismissal from service undoubtedly constitutes a severe sanction, it is imperative to underscore the deleterious impact on petitioner’s actions on the bank’s integrity and broader public trust in financial institutions. By illicitly transferring funds under the guise of financial exigency, the petitioner not only violated the sanctity of his professional duties but also jeopardized the interest of customers and stake holders.
9
operates within the framework of laws, regulations and ethical standards designed to ensure transparency, accountability and compliance. Corruption violates these legal and regulatory requirements. The culture of corruption within banking system cannot be tolerated which often stifles innovation and progress within banking institutions.
10
fraud at the hands of fraudsters and various mechanism are deployed to counter this ATM reversal fraud and if a bank official is involved in transaction reversal fraud and the banking institutions start witnessing fraud attack at the instance of its employees, then that would be detrimental to not only to the interest of banking institutions but also the customers at large. This subtle sleight of hand of a bank employee leading to such frauds only ends up leaving the bank to foot the bill. The respondent has rightly issued a charge memo and there is a departmental enquiry. The allegations are not only substantiated but petitioner has accepted his guilt in unequivocal terms.
11
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
CA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether dismissal from service for admitted unauthorized ATM reversal transactions amounting to Rs.2,25,000 was disproportionate and warranted interference.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
D J Mahesh
Canara Bank
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
