Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 663 (MP)

ANIL KUMAR SINGH RATHORE v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

2005-06-29

S.K.SETH

body2005
ORDER S.K. Seth, J. Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 5-2-2001 (Annexure P/4) whereby the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner is also questioning the validity of the appellate order dated 3-7-2001 (Annexure P/6) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed and instead of penalty of removal from service, penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. Relevant facts are as under. Petitioner was working as Bank Manager in Neemuch Branch of Ratlam Mandsaur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Ltd. While working as Branch Manager, petitioner had obtained over-draft facility from the Bank on the security of NSC of Rs. 5,000/-. While working as Branch Manager, petitioner surreptitiously removed the NSC and got it encashed without clearing the over-draft. When this was detected, petitioner was placed under suspension on 25-4-2000 and was served with a charge-sheet dated 28-7-2000. The substance of the charge levelled against the petitioner was that without permission of the Bank, petitioner removed the security offered against overdraft facility and got it encashed and thus acted beyond his authority and committed breach of Service Regulations, 1984. Looking to the gravity of the charge levelled against the petitioner, a regular departmental enquiry was held and an officer holding the rank of Branch Manager, Head Quarter, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer at the conclusion of the departmental enquiry found that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved and submitted the inquiry report. Considering the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from service on 5-2-2001 (Annexure P/4). Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal and in appeal, order of dismissal was slightly modified and petitioner was removed from service. After the show-cause notice was issued, respondents filed their reply and justified the action. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the material available on the record. The sole contention urged by Shri Patne, learned counsel for petitioner is that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is grossly disproportionate. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the NSC which was offered by the petitioner as security was removed with the knowledge of the other staff posted in the Branch. It was contended that a mere irregularity which did not call for such a grave punishment. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the NSC which was offered by the petitioner as security was removed with the knowledge of the other staff posted in the Branch. It was contended that a mere irregularity which did not call for such a grave punishment. Per Contra, Shri Pawecha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents, submitted that the disciplinary authority considering the past misconduct and punishment awarded to the petitioner, had rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal looking to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner which was found proved on the admission by the petitioner himself. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the order of dismissal has been partially modified and it has been converted into removal from service. It was submitted that the petitioner has become incorrigible as is clear from the previous departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner and it was not in the interest of the Bank or its customers to allow the petitioner to remain in Bank service. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and going through the material available on the record, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no merit and substance in the writ petition. It is pertinent to point out that when the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of Sailana Branch of the Bank, he committed serious financial irregularities almost amounting to defrauding the Bank for which a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 5-1-2000 wherein 4 charges were levelled against the petitioner and he admitted all the charges. In view of the admission made by the petitioner in respect of the charge-sheet issued on 5-1-2000, finally the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction in pay by 10 stages and a permanent bar against the promotion. The said order was passed on 12-5-2000 and petitioner was reinstated in service. Again, within a month or so from the date of the said order, petitioner was placed under suspension on 24-5-2000 and the charge-sheet was issued to him on 28-7-2000 in the present case. The disciplinary authority has rightly taken into account the previous proven misconduct and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. It is a clear-cut case where the petitioner has acted beyond his authority and in such a case, dismissal or removal from service is justified. See Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others Vs. The disciplinary authority has rightly taken into account the previous proven misconduct and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. It is a clear-cut case where the petitioner has acted beyond his authority and in such a case, dismissal or removal from service is justified. See Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the inquiry does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity so as to warrant interference. So far as contention of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to excessive punishment is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, it does not shock the conscience of the Court and as such, there is no scope for interference. The Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. It is no defence to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case when the officer/employee acted without authority. As has been held above, the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate; therefore, no interference can be made. No other contention was urged at the Bar. In view of the foregoing discussion. I find no merit and substance in the writ petition. Same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.