Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 268 (GAU)

Kajal Kumar Banik v. State Bank of India

2000-08-08

BRIJESH KUMAR, D.N.CHOWDHURY

body2000
Brijesh Kumar, C.J.— This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.2.97 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule 2229 of 1994 by which the writ petition had been dismissed in which order of suspension of the petitioner-appellant was challenged. 2. We have heard Shri AK Maheswari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri B. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the order of the learned Single Judge and the charges in respect of which disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner-appellant. We find that the order of suspension was passed on 11.11.94 and by now a period of more than 5 years has already elapsed. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri B. Kalita, however, informs that the Bank is not responsible for pendency of the disciplinary proceedings since it has been stayed at the instance of the petitioner-appellant. We have also perused the charges levelled against the petitioner-appellant. The charges are quoted below : “It has been alleged against you that when you were posted at Tinsukia Bazar Branch you committed the following irregularities : (a) You offered cheques/withdrawals and get them purchased as DD Purchase from Bank's Jairampur and Tinsukia Bazar Branches for large amount without keeping sufficient balance in your account at Tinsukia Bazar Branch on which these cheques/ withdrawals forms were drawn. (b) You suppressed from the Bank the fact of your relationship with some of the Bank's borrowers, who transpired to be your close relatives. 02. You have thus violated the Code of your service rules and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. 03. In view of the above, I have decided to place you under suspension with immediate effect pending further investigation as per provision of section 10 (b) of Sastri Award as retained by Desai Award. 04. Please note, during the period of suspension you will be entitled to draw the usual subsistence allowances equivalent to 1/3rd of the basic pay and allowances drawn by you as on the date of your suspension for the 1st three months and half of the pay and allowances thereafter. 05. Please also furnish your permanent home address, where you will be available whenever required by the Bank, to the Branch Manager, Gargaon ADB Branch. 06. 05. Please also furnish your permanent home address, where you will be available whenever required by the Bank, to the Branch Manager, Gargaon ADB Branch. 06. Please acknowledge receipt of this order on the enclosed duplicate copy under your full signature and date in token of your having received this order in original.” 3. From a perusal of the charges indicated above, it appears that the petitioner-appellant is said to have issued cheques from his account at Tinsukia/ Bazar Branch against the purchases made from some third party on the basis of cheques issued to such third party. It further appears that cheque was presented at the Bank's Jairampur Branch where it seems to have been converted into demand draft. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that on the date the cheque was issued the petitioner-appellant did not have sufficient balance in his account. It is further submitted that the petitioner got it converted into demand draft at the other branch at Arunachal Pradesh; but it is, however, not denied that at the time the demand draft was presented for encashment at Tinsukia Bazar Branch the amount was available. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the branch convert the cheque into demand draft against commission. It is submitted that no misconduct is involved. It is also submitted that even overdraft is permissible with the approval of the authority. In the present case, it is further submitted that even overdraft is not at all involved. We, however, feel hat it is not the for us to go into the merit of charges as it would have been the subject matter of the departmental enquiry and if the authority after enquiry finds something wrong, it is for the authority to take appropriate action as may be permissible under the rules. But one thing which admits of no doubt is that it is not necessary in every departmental proceeding that there must be suspension of the delinquent. An employee is to be suspended or not is a question which entirely depends upon the gravity of the alleged misconduct and likely punishment if chargers is for manipulation or records, fraud, embezzlement etc or things, of the like nature. So far as the other charge is concerned, we also find that it is about suppression of material facts of his relationship with some of the borrowers of the Bank. So far as the other charge is concerned, we also find that it is about suppression of material facts of his relationship with some of the borrowers of the Bank. It appears that the younger brother of the petitioner and his wife had taken loan from the Bank and in some of the loan documents submitted before the Bank he put his signatures as witness. The petitioner is a Cashier in the Branch and an officer of the Bank is not said to be authorised to be witness to borrowers of the Bank. Non-disclosure of the relationship with borrowers may be a point for enquiry but as observed earlier it is not necessary-that for whatever charge proceedings may be, it is not necessarily to be followed by an order of suspension. We, therefore, without making any observation on the merit of the charges, feel that there is no good reason for continuance of the suspension of the petitioner-appellant who was suspended as far back as in November, 1994 and by now a period of more than 5 years has already expired. Adverting to the question of issuing cheque by the present petitioner-appellant, it may be observed that in any bank transaction, it is open to a Bank not to honour a cheque, if the amount is not available in the account of the customer. 5. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as order of suspension dated 11.11.94 with immediate effect in so far its further operation is concerned. Any observation if made on merit in this order will have no effect on merits of the case in the disciplinary proceeding. No costs.