Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1726 (PAT)

State Bank Of India v. Babban Kumar Singh

2007-11-05

BARIN GHOSH, RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2007
Judgment Barin Ghosh and Ramesh Kumar Datta JJ. 1. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that on three dates, namely, on 11.02.1988, 23.04.1989 and 4.05.1989, the writ petitioner transported cash remittance from Aurangabad to Gaya and for that claimed Rs. 2,400.00, 2,500.00 and 3,125.00 respectively by way of truck hiring charge from the employer, which was reimbursed, but it transpired later that the same was in excess of the market rate of truck hiring charge and as such, the employer has suffered loss. 2. The facts constituting the charge had not been disputed but it was contended that the amounts spent, in fact, on account of truck hiring charges had been claimed and the same had been reimbursed. The matter was enquired into when the enquiring officer on the basis of a bill submitted by another employee of the employer dated 6.12.1989 for Rs. 1050.00 in connection with truck hiring charge from Aurangabad to Gaya held that the writ petitioner- respondent claimed excess charge and on the basis thereof, the disciplinary authority punished the writ petitioner-respondent. 3. Learned Single Judge by the judgment and order impugned in the present appeal accepted the contention that there was nothing on the record of the enquiry proceedings which would suggest that the rate of truck hiring charge on the dates the writ petitioner-respondent hired the same was less than what had been claimed by him and comparison of truck hiring rate of those dates with the truck hiring charge of 6.12.1989 was not proper. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence as was brought on record suggested that within close proximity of the period in question truck hiring charge for the same distance was much less than what had been claimed and obtained by the writ petitioner-respondents and accordingly, the learned Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition only on the ground of deficiency of evidence. It was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to bring on record the appropriate rate available during the period in question, but not beyond or before. It was also not brought on record that the truck hiring charge remained the same although the period in question and up to 6.12.1989. 5. Be that as it may, we feel that the charge-sheet was such that the same did not disclose any imputation of misconduct. It was also not brought on record that the truck hiring charge remained the same although the period in question and up to 6.12.1989. 5. Be that as it may, we feel that the charge-sheet was such that the same did not disclose any imputation of misconduct. It only indicated failure on the part of the writ petitioner-respondent to achieve the best, while discharging duties assigned to him. In other words it was imputed that there was foolishness on the part of the writ petitioner-respondent. There was no imputation of malice, nor there was any imputation of culpability. Such imputation cannot constitute misconduct. 6. The disciplinary authority awarded a punishment of withholding of two increments, which on appeal was reduced to withholding of one increment, and by the judgment under appeal, the appellants punishment has been done away with. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that there is no scope of interference. The appeal fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.