Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 518 (JHR)

Niranjan Kumar Pandey v. Bank Of India

2003-04-24

TAPEN SEN

body2003
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.12.1994 (Annexure-5) passed by the Regional Manager of the Bank whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner also prays for quashing the appellate order dated 28.8.1995 (Annexure-6) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. 2. According to the petitioner, a Memorandum was issued on 28.1.1993 communicating inter alia to the petitioner that as per order of the Chief Executive Officer of the bank passed on 17.8.1987, the departmental inquiry would be held against the petitioner. The charge-sheet has been brought on record through the supplementary affidavit filed on 19.1.1996 and from a perusal thereof it appears that the charges leveled against the petitioner was that while he was discharging his duties as a special assistant in the Hazaribagh Branch from 18.10.1984 he had committed certain alleged frauds on the Bank as a result of which he had been suspended vide order 9.7.1993 pending issuance of charge-sheet and disciplinary proceeding. 3. The petitioner has submitted that upon receiving the charge-sheet, he filed an application on 3.9.1993 vide Annexure-2 wherein he requested for documents mentioned therein. 4. Subsequently, the inquiry was held but only some documents were given. The inquiry was held on 31.5.1994 and the Inquiry Officer directed the Manager to provide the copies of the 12 documents mentioned in under Clause (a) of Annexure-2 and so far as the other documents mentioned under Clause (b), the Branch Manager was directed to show them to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Manager for supply of a document but that was not done and inspite of several requests, the relevant documents were not given as a result of which the petitioner was deprived of proper opportunity to prove his innocence. Nevertheless the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.7.1994 which was not given to the petitioner and after giving a second show cause notice, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 20.12.1994 as contained at Annexure-5. Thereafter, he filed a departmental appeal but that was also dismissed. The petitioner has further stated that ho proper opportunity was given to him in as much some witnesses were either not cross examined while some were not even called for examination. Thereafter, he filed a departmental appeal but that was also dismissed. The petitioner has further stated that ho proper opportunity was given to him in as much some witnesses were either not cross examined while some were not even called for examination. The petitioner has also stated that the allegations to the effect of non existence of Sita Devi was not correct and that the Bank was not even in possession of the document to substantiate the charges. From perusal of the charge-sheet it is apparent that the charges against the petitioner was of opening fictitious account creating fictitious credit entries to the tune of Rs. 4,35,896.00 by dishonestly manipulating the Bank, records, arranging fraudulent withdrawals of money therefrom and subsequently regularizing the entries with manipulation of Banks records thereby defrauding the Bank involving financial loss of Rs. 4,45,199.97 which were acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and amounted to acts of gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause 19.5 (J) of the first bipartite settlement dated 19.10.1996. 5. According to the respondents, and as stated by them in the second Supplementary counter affidavit, the petitioner was previously punished for committing fraud in the Bills Department while posted at Jhumri Tilaiya Branch but taking a lenient view, he was punished by stoppage of seven increments with a hope that he would rectify himself and would not repeat such acts. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner was served with the charge- sheet which was framed on the basis of the available records of the Bank when prima facie involvement of the petitioner was detected. They have further stated that by service of the charge-sheet the petitioner was not required to reply by way of show cause because the charge-sheet had already been served on him and he was advised to present his case during the course of inquiry. They have also stated that various representations were made by the petitioner during the course of inquiry and they were appropriately dealt with by the concerned authorities. So far as Annexure-3 is concerned i.e. the letter by which the petitioner requested supply of documents, the Inquiry Officer directed the presenting officer to arrange supply to the petitioner and in feet the petitioner had undertaken the inspection at the Hazaribagh Branch. Mrs. So far as Annexure-3 is concerned i.e. the letter by which the petitioner requested supply of documents, the Inquiry Officer directed the presenting officer to arrange supply to the petitioner and in feet the petitioner had undertaken the inspection at the Hazaribagh Branch. Mrs. M.M. Pall, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the documents which were relevant to the charges were given to the petitioner during the proceedings and since this was a case of fraud committed during the long period of stay of the petitioner in the Branch by manipulating records, certain documents were found missing from the records of the Branch. The petitioner had full knowledge of this fact and in an attempt to create delay and confusion, he started emphasizing the need of either missing documents or irrelevant documents. She has further stated that the Inquiry Officer had been very considerate and liberal and had produced available documents for inspection and verification by the petitioner. The allegations in relation to not being allowed to cross examine one S.N. Kerketta was totally irrelevant in as much as this plea was raised by the petitioner to mislead the Court. In fact the examination-in-chief of Shri Kerketta was held on 31.12.1993 when the petitioner was present in the proceeding. He was asked to cross-examine him but he avoided doing so stating non availability of good defence assistants. He was again provided an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Kerketta during the proceeding which was held on 7.4.1994 but he again avoided to do so. According to the respondents, Shri Kerketta was one amongst a large number of witnesses who could not be recalled again and again a the sweet will of he petitioner. 6. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner was always insisting for inspection of several documents which were either traceless or were irrelevant for the purposes of the inquiry. Taking note of such frivolous insistence on the part of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer recorded on 4.7.1994 as follows :-- "Time and again you have raised only one question that you have not been supplied information by the Hazaribagh Branch. I have checked up personally that the Manager, Hazaribagh Branch and in writing also the branch has provided you to the extent possible the information they could." 7. I have checked up personally that the Manager, Hazaribagh Branch and in writing also the branch has provided you to the extent possible the information they could." 7. Looking at the case in totality, it is apparent that whatever was relevant was given to the petitioner and he was provided opportunity of Inspection. In fact Annexure-B and C appended to the second Supplementary Counter Affidavit of the respondents filed on 19.2.2003 goes to show adequate opportunity having been given. Annexure-B is an order sheet which shows that right from September, 1993 to July, 1994 the proceedings continued and after detailed investigation, the Inquiry officer submitted his report. 8. Considering the case in its entirety, therefore, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference by this Court. Moreover, this Court is also satisfied that there has been no infirmity or irregularity in the proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however be no order as to costs.