Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 618 (PAT)

Shankar Prasad Kedia v. Central Bank Of India

2000-04-21

ASOK KUMAR GANGULY

body2000
Judgment A.K.Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service by the order of the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter called the said Bank) dated 4.1.1992. The said order was communicated to the petitioner by a communication dated 29.1.1992. Against the said order an appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the order of the appellate authority dated 27th August, 1992. Both orders have been challenged in the writ petition, namely, the order of the disciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority. 2. The charges against the petitioner are at Annexure-2. There are several charges which are set out below : 1. Sri Kedia, as Branch Manager or Maripur Branch, allowed overdrawn in cash credit account in the name of Sri Bibek Kumar at Maripur Branch id trading purpose to the extent of Rs. 63110/- for which neither he had any lending power, nor did he seek perrmision from higher authorities to that effect. Surprisingly, the above account was credited with an entry of Rs. 30000/- on 8.5.90 by transferring the amount from six term loan accounts for supply of kirana goods to those six borrowers. The above borrowers were sanctioned and disbursed loan irregularity by Sri Kedia @ Rs. 5000/- to each on 8.5.90. No documents, application in respect of above six term loan borrowers as well as C/C A/C of Sri Bibek Kumar are available, nor the borrowers/ CC A/C holder, their establishments i.e., shops are traceable as per given addresses in ledgers. Sri Kedia allowed loans to fictitious persons with ulterior motive and malafide intention. 2. During Sri Kedias working at Maripur branch as B. M. a bankers cheque of Rs. 15000/- was issued from the branch favouring M/s Jai Bhawani Stores, a proprietorship concern, Sri Pradeep Kumar Kedia, son of Sri Kedia being the proprietor of the same, for supply of materials/ articles to three term loan borrowers for which no accounts were opened at all nor any debit voucher for the same was on the record. Only a debit entry of Rs. 15000/- has been made in cash book in his own handwriting. The above action of Sri Kedia indicates misappropriation of banks money for his personal gain. 3. Only a debit entry of Rs. 15000/- has been made in cash book in his own handwriting. The above action of Sri Kedia indicates misappropriation of banks money for his personal gain. 3. Sri Kedia concealed the material information in respect of getting sanction of his PCL and loan for marriage of his son and availed the above loans when the balances due to previous PCL and marriage loan were still outstanding on date of availment and there he misutilised his position as Branch Manager for his personal gain. 4. Sri Kedia availed advance against salary for Rs. 1500/- on 2.7.90 without any prior permission from competent authority. 5. Sri Kedia while working at Jhuran Chapra Branch got a loan for Rs. 20000/- sanctioned for his son Sri Pradeep Kumar Kedia from Damodarpur Branch on 25.2.88 in which he stood as guarantor without taking any proper permission from the competent authority and he exercised his undue influence over the Branch Manager to get the loan sanctioned for his son. 6. During his working as Branch Manager at Jhuran Chapra Branch, Sri Kedia sanctioned loans for which he had no lending power. Thus he misutilised his position as Branch Manager jeoparadising the Banks interest. 7. It was observed that during his working as B.M. at Jhuran Chapra Branch loan of Rs. 15000/- was sanctioned by him under SEEUY Scheme for general kirana store and a delivery order for Rs. 11500/- was issued to M/s Jai Bhawani Stores for supply of materials to above kirana shop which was not opened at all. Thus, he entered into collusion with so called borrower and deliberately allowed the loan amounts to be misappropriated for his personal gains. 8. Sri Kedia while working as BM at Jhuran Chapra Branch stood as guarantor in favour of his sons and wife for C/C A/Cs opened at State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and he did not seek any permission for the same from Competent authority. He also utilised his position in bank to get sanctioned the above advance in favour of his son & wife. 9. Though Sri Kedia was transferred to Maripur Branch on 2.3.90 neither his leave account was opened nor any leave availed by him was posted. Moreover, recovery of salary for loss of pay for previous period was not made. He also utilised his position in bank to get sanctioned the above advance in favour of his son & wife. 9. Though Sri Kedia was transferred to Maripur Branch on 2.3.90 neither his leave account was opened nor any leave availed by him was posted. Moreover, recovery of salary for loss of pay for previous period was not made. Thus, Sri Kedia deliberately caused non-recovery of salary for his loss of pay by misutilising his official position. 3. It is not in dispute that in connection with the said charges a departmental enquiry was held. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the enquiry. From the enquiry report it appears that in the enquiry 17 sittings took place. The petitioner was also allowed to submit his written brief. The Enquiry officer held that all the charges against the petitioner have been proved except charge no. 5. It is also not in dispute that after the enquiry officer had given his finding the petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry officers report, asking him to make his representation against the said findings. To that the petitioner made his representation. After considering the representation, the penalty of dismissal was passed against the petitioner. Therefore, it appears that procedural requirements have been complied with in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has raised before this Court two points. First point of the learned counsel is that documents were not supplied to the petitioner, and as a result of non supply of the documents, the petitioner suffered two prejudices. First of which is that the petitioner could not file effective show cause and the second prejudice was that the petitioner could not cross examine the witnesses in course of enquiry. The other point on which the learned counsel made his submission is that in the enquiry officers report there has not been proper discussion of the evidence by the enquiry officer in support of his findings. 5. For examining the first grievance of the petitioner, this Court finds that at least four annexures have been disclosed in the writ petition, being Annexures- 3, 4, 5 and 6 in which the petitioner made a prayer for inspection of the documents, but in none of those letters written by the petitioner, the petitioner has given any particulars of the documents which he wants. In other words, in none of those letters written by the petitioner any list of documents has been annexed by the petitioner showing relevance of those documents to the defence of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, from Annexure-D, it appears that the petitioner was asked by the authorities of the Bank to submit a list of documents which he wanted to inspect. This also appears from para-14 at page 13 of the writ petition, that he was asked to submit the list of documents, which he wanted to inspect, by the Banks letter dated 8.1.1991. According to the petitioner he replied to the said letter of the Bank by his letter dated 10.1.1991. But neither the letter dated 8.1.1991 nor letter dated 10.1.1991 has been disclosed in the writ petition. In the absence of those documents, this Court is not in a position to ascertain whether the petitioner has given a list of documents as demanded by the Bank. 7. However, from para-18 of the writ petition, it appears that at the time of enquiry the petitioners case that on seeking the list of documents he wanted further time to go through them. Therefore, from the above case of the petitioner two things emerge : 1. The petitioners reply dated 10.1.1991 to the Banks letter dated 8.1.1991 asking the petitioner to give list of documents has not been brought on the records. Therefore, this Court is bound to conclude that the petitioner has not made any specific answer for inspection of the particular documents as he was asked to do so by the Bank. 2. The petitioner was shown the list of all documents when the enquire actually commenced. 8. In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court cannot come to a con-clusion that the petitioner has been denied proper opportunity of defence as a result of denial of inspection of the documents. In fact the petitioners case of denial of inspection of document is not made out. 9. It is well known that the judicial opinion in these matters presently is tha in a case in which there has been an enquiry and the petitioner attended the same, the right of defence must be construed in the context of prejudice which has been suffered by the employee. 9. It is well known that the judicial opinion in these matters presently is tha in a case in which there has been an enquiry and the petitioner attended the same, the right of defence must be construed in the context of prejudice which has been suffered by the employee. It is not the case of the petitioner that as a result of late inspection of documents, he wanted time from the authorities of the said Bank and the said time was denied Apart from that from the nature of the charges it appears that all the documents are known to the petitioner and the charges against the petitioner are on the basis of his acts of omission and commission as the Branch Manager of a particular branch of the said Bank. Neither is the petitioner an illiterate employee who is not conversant with the Banking procedure. The petitioner being the Branch Manager of a particular Branch must be conversant with the procedure of the Bank and there is no reason for the petitioner to be taken by surprise, if the relevant documents are made available to him for inspection just on the eve of the enquiry, and especially when the petitioner despite request by the bank has not given specific list of documents which he wants to inspect. Therefore, in the facts of this case, this court comes to the conclusion that there has been no denial of reasonable opportunity of defence of the petitioner in the said enquiry. 10. The next grievance of the petitioner that in the enquiry officers report the evidence has not been discussed also is equally without substance. This Court has perused the findings of the enquiry officer. The Enquiry officer has given chargewise findings and while dealing with the charges, the enquiry officer has clubbed some of the charges together for the purpose of convenience of discussion and there is nothing wrong in that. This court is satisfied that the discussion is sufficient to bring home the charges. It is not expected that the enquiry officer will write a judgment like the judicial officers. Even then this court finds that the report of the enquiry officer is quite detailed and on consideration and analysis of the materials on record. Therefore, this court is unable to hold that the enquiry officers report is either cryptic or without any proper consideration of the materials. 11. Even then this court finds that the report of the enquiry officer is quite detailed and on consideration and analysis of the materials on record. Therefore, this court is unable to hold that the enquiry officers report is either cryptic or without any proper consideration of the materials. 11. This court finds that in his defence argument before the enquiry officer , the petitioner in a way accepted some of the charges namely that he helped his son and he has accepted mistakes committed by him. Particular portion in which such admission occurs is quoted below : "From the entire proceeding of the enquiry, nowhere the intention and integrity of Sri S.P.Kedia is proved doubtful rather he tried to establish his son and downtrodden borrowers by providing employment to them. A few procedural mistakes should not be taken as malafide intention." 12. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the writ petitioner, it is difficult for this court to hold that there has not been a proper enquiry or the petitioner has not been given proper opportunity of defence. 13. In a recent decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala V/s. S.K. Sharma, reported in (1996) 3 S.C.C. page 364, the two learned judges Bench of the Supreme Court after noting the case law on the subject has summarised the principle which would be followed when in a departmental proceeding grievances are made for violation of the principles of natural justice and where there is allegation of violation of apropriate opportunities of defence. 14. It has been stated that in case of such complaints, the court should enquire whether violation has been on a substantive issue or whether such violation is procedural in nature. In case of procedural provision, the position is that such provision is generally made for affording reasonable opportunity of defence and they are given in the interest of the delinquent. Such cases are falling under two categories, namely, the cases where there no notice, no opportunity and no hearing has been given. In such cases, the complaints of violation of the procedural aspect should be examined very seriously. But in the second category of cases where there has been an enquiry such complaint must be considered from the point of view of prejudice. In such cases, the complaints of violation of the procedural aspect should be examined very seriously. But in the second category of cases where there has been an enquiry such complaint must be considered from the point of view of prejudice. So going by that standard, this court finds that this case falls in the second category and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Therefore no interference is called for by this Court. 15. In the instant case, by delayed supply of the documents to the petitioner, no prejudice has been caused which has been noted above, specially when the petitioner has virtually admitted part of the charges against him. 16. In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to interfere with the impugned order of penalty. 17. So far, the question of quantum of penalty is concerned, it is well known that the jurisdiction of a writ court under Article 226 is limited. Even then this Court finds, having regard to the nature of the charges which are very serious, and for a person who is holding the post of Branch Manager, the penalty of dismissal in the facts of this case is neither disproportionate nor is it excessive. 18. Therefore, considering the case from all angles, this court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference by this court with the impugned order of punishment or with the impugned proceeding which was held for the purpose of imposing the punishment. 19. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.