Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1559 (MAD)

N. Ramakrishnan v. Disciplinary Authority

2008-06-03

P.JYOTHIMANI

body2008
Judgment :- ORDER The petitioner while working as Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, in its branch office at Janpath, New Delhi, was served with a charge sheet on 10.01.1991. Seven charges were framed against him viz., Charge No.1: The petitioner while working as Chief Manager, Janpath branch, during 1989 and 1990, opened number of revolving Letter of Credits in various accounts of Indana Group of Companies and the revolving Letter of Credits were opened without reinstatement clause and he has committed various irregularities and against the terms of sanction in the manual of instructions and Central Office guidelines and therefore he has failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and charged under Regulation 3.1 and 3.3 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 read with Regulation 24 which is punishable under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Charge No.2: The petitioner has allowed unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.47 lakhs approximately in the accounts of Foremost Industries (I) Limited and Indodan Industries Limited at the time when accounts were grossly overdrawn and in spite of reminders from Zonal Office, he failed to monitor the accounts and therefore he failed to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank, thus charged under the above said Regulations. Charge No.3: The petitioner has not inspected the stocks in the account of Indodan Industries and Foremost Industries (I) Limited, who have not submitted their monthly stock statements and position of the account which is grossly out of order and therefore charged under the Regulations stated above. On 06.5.1991, the following additional charges were framed against the petitioner viz., Charge No. 4: The petitioner while working as Chief Manager at Janpath branch during 1989-1990, signed Letter of Credit No.44/48 dated 25.08.1990, for Rs.41,18,852.40/-favoring M/s. Manu Steels, 118, Shakti Vihar, New Delhi wherein the advising branch is named as Addison Building, Madras branch. The petitioner should have advised the Letter of Credit direct or through any other branch in Delhi, since the beneficiaries was having its address at Delhi. The beneficiaries M/s. Manu Steels by letter dated 22.09.1990, has brought to the notice of the branch that Letter of Credits is a fraud and it did not pertain to them. The petitioner should have advised the Letter of Credit direct or through any other branch in Delhi, since the beneficiaries was having its address at Delhi. The beneficiaries M/s. Manu Steels by letter dated 22.09.1990, has brought to the notice of the branch that Letter of Credits is a fraud and it did not pertain to them. The petitioner instead of making enquires, signed the letter dated 05.10.1990 and the matter has not been taken up with the negotiating bank viz., Standard Chartered Bank, Madras. Therefore, despite of knowledge of fraud, the petitioner gave instruction to send telex to honour the commitments under the Letter of Credits and therefore liable for action as per the above Regulations. Charge No. 5: The petitioner unauthorized and without the knowledge of any other official and without entering into bank’s books, signed the letters to various banks confirming acceptance of documents under Letter of Credits stating that payment of the said bills will be made on due date and hence charged under the above said Regulations. Charge No.5(A): In spite of knowledge of denial by the beneficiary having involved in the Letter of Credit transaction being a fraud, the petitioner signed a letter dated 27.09.1990 to M/s. Standard Chartered Bank, Mylapore that payment will be made on 20.02.1991, without knowledge of any official from Bank and without recording in Letter of Credit register and therefore charged under the above said Regulations. Charge No.6: All revolving Letter of Credits were unauthorized signed by the petitioner and did not contain the important basic documents such as transport documents, insurance documents and commercial invoice. No limiting period was mentioned for presentation of documents for negotiation from the date of shipments and the last date of negotiation as informed by the party without verifying and taking necessary documentary evidence and therefore charged under the above said Regulations. Charge No.7: The petitioner has unauthorized transferred a limit of Rs.5 lacs for cheque discounting from the account of M/s. Indodan Industries Ltd. for use at Addison Building, Madras for utilization of discounting local as well as up-country cheques drawn on M/s. Indodan Industries Ltd. Even higher authorities were not informed about the same and not reported the position of accounts to the Zonal Office, thus hiding an act done without authority and in gross violation of bank’s rules and therefore charged under the above said Regulations. 2. 2. The said charge sheet dated 10.01.1991, as well as, additional charge sheet dated 06.05.1991, accompanied the various documents and list of witnesses and the petitioner has also inspected various documents as admitted by him in his letter dated 04.02.1991, addressed to the Disciplinary Authority and Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, New Delhi. 3. TheAssistant General Manager, Mr. P.E. Rawat, was appointed as the Inquiring Authority on 10.08.1992 and after several sitting, the enquiry was concluded on 09.09.1995 and the management side has produced three witnesses in addition to the documentary evidence and ultimately the Inquiring Authority has submitted his findings dated 28.11.1995, a copy of which has been received by the petitioner on 13.01.1996, by courier as admitted by him in his letter dated 22.01.1996, addressed to the Deputy General Manger / Disciplinary Authority. 4. The Inquiring Authority in the findings submitted by him has concluded that Charge Nos.1,2,3 and 5(A) has been proved and Charge No.6 as partly proved and has exonerated the petitioner from Charge Nos.4,5 and 7 as not having been proved. To the findings in the enquiry report, the petitioner has given his reply to the Disciplinary Authority on 22.01.1996 and ultimately the Disciplinary Authority has passed final orders on 19th/24th of January 1998, holding that Charge Nos.1,2,3 and 5 (A) are proved while Charge No.6 partly proved and discharged the petitioner in respect of Charge Nos.4,5 & 7 and awarded the penalty of dismissal from service in respect of Charge No.1, reduction by two stages in the time scale in respect of Charge Nos.2, 3 & 5(A) and reduction by one stage in the time scale in respect of Charge No.6 and exonerated the petitioner from Charge Nos.4,5 & 7 and awarded consolidated penalty of dismissal from bank service in terms of Regulation 4(h) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 5. It was against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority viz., the first respondent, the petitioner has filed appeal. The Appellate Authority viz., the second respondent General Manager, Central Bank of India, Bombay who, by his letter dated 24.05.1999, has confirmed the punishment of dismissal as it was communicated to the petitioner by the second respondent dated 14.06.1999. 5. It was against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority viz., the first respondent, the petitioner has filed appeal. The Appellate Authority viz., the second respondent General Manager, Central Bank of India, Bombay who, by his letter dated 24.05.1999, has confirmed the punishment of dismissal as it was communicated to the petitioner by the second respondent dated 14.06.1999. It is as against the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent as confirmed by the second respondent Appellate Authority as stated above, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. The main grounds on which the said order of dismissal is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition is as follows: (i) Vital documents which were required by the petitioner have not been produced to him thereby the principles of Natural Justice is violated. (ii) While major charge framed against the petitioner is that he has allowed opening of revolving Letter of Credits without reinstatement clauses, whereas, the Letter of Credits opened were with automatic reinstatement clause and therefore the charge itself is not true and baseless. (iii) The said major charge itself is based on the instruction dated 18.06.1980 and 08.09.1980, which according to the petitioner, has been superseded by subsequent Central Office circular dated 22.10.1988, in which there is no prohibition to open Letter of Credits as found in the circular dated 08.09.1980 and therefore, the transaction which took place between 1989-1990 were covered by subsequent circular of the Central Office dated 22.10.1988 and therefore reliance placed on the earlier circular dated 08.09.1980 is patently wrong. (iv) In spite of repeated representation to call for the files from the Zonal Office which would reveal that the petitioner has informed periodically about the opening of Letter of Credits, the Manager, Janpath branch informed that the files of Indana Group were missing and not traceable. It was in those circumstances that Zonal Office files were requested to be perused and the petitioner was informed that the same is not possible since they are privileged document and would amount to repetition. 7. In the counter affidavit filled by the respondents it is stated that in respect of extending credit facilities, they are sanctioned by hierarchy of officers depending upon the nature, scope and magnitude and also fix the maximum upper limit and one such facility extended by the bank is Letter of Credit facility. 7. In the counter affidavit filled by the respondents it is stated that in respect of extending credit facilities, they are sanctioned by hierarchy of officers depending upon the nature, scope and magnitude and also fix the maximum upper limit and one such facility extended by the bank is Letter of Credit facility. The Letter of Credit is a facility being given at the request of the customer to the third party to make payment as per the stipulations contained in the document and the Letter of Credit limit is given for a period of one year or less on a review of the conduct of the account or the customer. It is an arrangement which ensures that if the customer does not reimburse to the bank, the amount paid under the Letter of Credit to the beneficiaries and the total contingent obligation of the bank exceeds the limit of the Letter of Credit, the bank could decline to issue further Letter of Credit. The Letter of Credit is usually valid in respect of one transaction and in very rare circumstances, revolving Letter of Credit is given to the third party seller / supplier at the request of its customer. The revolving Letter of Credit involves more than one transaction of purchase or sale. In respect of the said revolving Letter of Credit, a limit is established in respect of availability to the beneficiary to the extent of bills drawn, in which event, it enables the bank to stop issue of such reinstatement letter thereby avoiding bank's obligation to the third party. If such Letter of Credit is issued without such restriction clause viz., reinstatement clause, the beneficiary of the Letter of Credit gets the amount without waiting for reinstatement advice. Therefore, in respect of revolving Letter of Credit with reinstatement clause, the liability of the opening bank will be restricted to the amount of the Letter of Credit, whereas in the case of revolving Letter of Credit without such restriction clause, the liability of the opening bank will increase to the number of times by which the Letter of Credit revolves. Therefore, according to the respondents, banks do not issue revolving Letter of Credit without reinstatement clause. 8. Further it is stated in the counter affidavit that in respect of Chief Manager, the aggregate credit limit to be sanctioned by him was fixed at Rs.10 lakhs during 1988. Therefore, according to the respondents, banks do not issue revolving Letter of Credit without reinstatement clause. 8. Further it is stated in the counter affidavit that in respect of Chief Manager, the aggregate credit limit to be sanctioned by him was fixed at Rs.10 lakhs during 1988. Indodan Industries Ltd., and Foremost Industries Ltd. were the customers of the bank in Janpath Branch, New Delhi. Out of whom Indodan Industries Ltd., were enjoying Letter of Credit facility to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs while Foremost Industries was enjoying the said facility for Rs.25 lakhs. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner who joined in the service of the bank in the year 1972 is a Chartered Accountant and was promoted to the post of Senior Manager Grade Scale IV, working as Chief Manager, Janpath Branch between March 1988 to May 1990. The case of the respondents is that during that time, it was found that the petitioner has opened number of automatic revolving Letters of Credit without reinstatement clause in respect of the above said two companies and has allowed Indodan Industries to enjoy automatic irrevocable revolving Letter of Credit for Rs.3,63,195/- for a period of 36 months in favour of Mani Management Consultants Private Limited. Therefore, he has allowed the said Mani Management Consultants Private Limited to receive the amount without Indodan Industries paying the amount to the bank thereby allowing to enjoy an unauthorized credit limit to an extent of Rs.1,30,75,020/- and likewise in respect of Foremost Industries India Limited also he has allowed an unauthorized credit limit to an extent of Rs.91,55,736/-. It was also found that Indodan Industries had an outstanding of Rs.89.38 lakhs as against the sanctioned limit of Rs.30 lakhs and the Foremost Industries India Limited having an outstanding of Rs.50.56 lakhs against the sanctioned limit of Rs.25 lakhs and the petitioner has allowed the said companies to unauthorized withdraw the amount approximately running to Rs.47 lakhs. It was also found that the petitioner has signed various Letter of Credit without having basic documents. It was on that basis, the memo of charge dated 10.01.1991 was issued. It was also found that the petitioner has signed various Letter of Credit without having basic documents. It was on that basis, the memo of charge dated 10.01.1991 was issued. By letter dated 28.11.1990, the petitioner has confirmed of opening of various letter of credit stating that it was within the delegated power of the Chief Manager and he was not aware of the difference between opening of Letter of Credit revolving with reinstatement clause and without reinstatement clause. 9. In the enquiry conducted at Delhi, three witnesses were examined and the petitioner has not chosen to examine any witness. The Enquiry Officer has given a finding on 28.11.1995, holding that Charge Nos.1,2,3 & 5A were proved while Charge No.6 partly proved and Charge Nos.4,5 & 7 not proved. Copy of the findings were given to the petitioner and second show cause notice was issued as per the conduct rules to which the petitioner has given his reply. After considering all these, the Disciplinary Authority passed orders on 19/24.01.1998, dismissing the petitioner from service and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The order passed by the Appellate Authority at Bombay was communicated by the third respondent to the petitioner since at that time, the petitioner was employed in the Zonal Office in Chennai, within the administrative control of the third respondent. 10. It is the case of the respondents that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is also their further case that there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned order. The third respondent has no role except communicating the order of the Appellate Authority to the petitioner, since the petitioner at that time was under the administrative control of the third respondent. Merely because the order in appeal was communicated at Chennai, it cannot be said that this Court has jurisdiction. 11. It is also stated that during the time of enquiry, the petitioner was not placed under suspension. There is no violation of principles of Natural Justice. The petitioner was defended by Mr. J.K. Ramprasad, who was an erstwhile Office bearer of the Central Bank of India Officers' Association and who was also well versed with the procedure in the disciplinary proceedings. It is also stated that two circulars dated 18.06.1980 and 08.09.1980, specifically prohibited the opening of letter of credit with automatic reinstatement clause. The petitioner was defended by Mr. J.K. Ramprasad, who was an erstwhile Office bearer of the Central Bank of India Officers' Association and who was also well versed with the procedure in the disciplinary proceedings. It is also stated that two circulars dated 18.06.1980 and 08.09.1980, specifically prohibited the opening of letter of credit with automatic reinstatement clause. Subsequent circular dated 22.10.1988, is only inconsonance with the earlier circular and the same was only issued enhancing the power of the hierarchy of officers in case of upper credit limit. There is no change in the opening of Letter of Credit with automatic reinstatement clause. The file which the petitioner requires was found missing, however, the petitioner was able to produced copies of certain documents which ought to have been found place in the missing files. The petitioner has not explained the source from which he was able to get possession of the said documents. Further, the Disciplinary Authority has dealt with the above aspect. It is also stated that in as much as the charge itself is on opening of revolving letter of credit without reinstatement clause, which was not denied, the non production of the said files would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Even though the bank was able to produce the cheques amounting to Rs.36,85,511/- and the remaining amount was not available, the petitioner in his letter dated 14.09.1990, has not disputed payment of Rs.47 lakhs. 12. According to the respondents in the counter affidavit, enquiry was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and the petitioner has never made any grievance regarding the conduct of the enquiry. It is also specifically stated in the counter affidavit by the respondents that the petitioner had opened the revolving letters of credit with automatic reinstatement and revolving letter of credit without reinstatement clause which in effect amounts to not having reinstatement clause at all. By allowing the opening in the said manner, the petitioner has exceeded the credit limits and the respondents sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire disciplinary proceedings have been continued as if the petitioner has committed the charges by relying upon the two letters of the petitioner dated 28.01.1990 and 04.12.1991. 13. Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire disciplinary proceedings have been continued as if the petitioner has committed the charges by relying upon the two letters of the petitioner dated 28.01.1990 and 04.12.1991. The genesis of the case of the petitioner is that he was competent to open the letter of credit of any category and that he had reported the said fact to the Zonal Office and had obtained their approval. According to him, in the circular dated 18.06.1980, there was no embargo regarding opening of revolving Letters of Credit. The subsequent circular dated 08.09.1980, is only a clarification and any restriction imposed in the said clarification cannot be read with the original circular dated 18.06.1980. He would also submit that the very charge itself is not correct for the reason that charge memo is for the opening of revolving Letter of credit without reinstatement clause, whereas, the charge itself does not refer to the opening of automatic revolving Letters of Credit but only refers to revolving Letter of Credit. The clarification circular dated 08.09.1980, only prohibits opening of automatic revolving letter of credit and in as much as the charge is not relating to opening of automatic revolving letter of credit, Clause 8 of the clarification circular dated 08.09.1980, cannot be applied and therefore according to him the charges framed are not correct. 14. The second submission is that while the charge itself is against the petitioner for having opened the letter of credit without reinstatement clause, but all the letter of credit referred to in the annexure to charge sheet marked as document during the enquiry in fact contains reinstatement clause and therefore, the charge should be deemed not to have been proved. Therefore the Disciplinary Authority has proceeded on a wrong assumption that the letter of credit have been opened without reinstatement clause which is factually incorrect. He has also submitted that only in the counter affidavit the respondents have improved the charge by including the automatic revolving letters of credit which is equivalent to the letter of credit without reinstatement clause. In as much as it is not the charge, the respondents cannot be permitted to improve the case. 15. He has also submitted that only in the counter affidavit the respondents have improved the charge by including the automatic revolving letters of credit which is equivalent to the letter of credit without reinstatement clause. In as much as it is not the charge, the respondents cannot be permitted to improve the case. 15. It is the further contention of the learned senior counsel that in respect of opening of letter of credit, the petitioner has always reported the same and got the approval from the Zonal Office. Further the petitioner has also marked 83 document which are the correspondents between the Branch Office and the Zonal Office and the relevancy has also been proved. However, the Enquiry Officer has refused to deliver the said 83 documents on the basis that the relevancy has not been proved. Further, the petitioner has specifically stated that the higher authorities has full knowledge about the opening of the letter of credit and have never found fault with and the said statement, has not been specifically denied. The non-marking of 83 documents disabled the petitioner to prove the case that Zonal Office was informed about the opening of letter of credit. The claim of the respondents that production of files from Zonal Office is privileged documents is not correct. He would also submit that in the absence any charge of misappropriation or personal gain to the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from service is not proportionate to the charge itself. He would also submit that two letters dated 28.09.1990 and 04.02.1991 of the petitioners does not amount to acceptance. What was stated in the letter dated 28.09.1990, which was before the issue of charge sheet was that the Zonal Office has knowledge of opening of letters of credit and there has been daily audit by M.S. Nanda, Chartered Accountant. The letter dated 04.02.1991, is after the charge sheet, wherein the petitioner has not accepted the charge and made it clear that the letters of credit were opened on instruction from the higher authorities. He would also rely upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Vs. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and another ( (2007) 4 SCC 669 ) and Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India and another ( (2008) 3 SCC 484 ), to substantiate his contention regarding the proportionality of punishment. He would also rely upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Vs. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and another ( (2007) 4 SCC 669 ) and Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India and another ( (2008) 3 SCC 484 ), to substantiate his contention regarding the proportionality of punishment. Finally the learned senior counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is reaching the age of superannuation on 01.05.2008 and therefore, the petitioner cannot press for reinstatement and in those circumstances, he submitted that the impugned order ought to be set aside. 16. On the other hand Mr. V. Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in the first instance, this Court has no jurisdiction. His submission is that show-cause notices were issued in Delhi and the petitioner has replied to the Delhi office apart from the fact that the act of the petitioner during 1988-1990 itself is when he was working in Janpath branch, Delhi. Even the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority at Bombay and the third respondent has only communicated the order to the petitioner since at that time, the petitioner was working at Chennai under the administrative control of the third respondent. He relied upon the judgments reported in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another (2004 (3) CTC 365) and Canon Steels P. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs (2008 (1) CTC 92) to substantiate his contention that jurisdiction can be either at New Delhi or Bombay and not at Chennai. 17. As far as the violation of principles of Natural Justice is concerned, he would submit that even by non-production of documents which were unable to be produced because of loss, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner. His submission is that revolving letter of credit is well known in the banking transaction which relates to multiple proceedings namely, repeated financial transaction and only if it contains reinstatement clause, the bank will be protected and the circular dated 18.06.1980, speaks about revised lending power. However, the subsequent circular issued in 1988, which has not superseded the previous circular issued in 1980 specifically prohibits opening of automatic letter of credit. Automatic letter of credit means without reinstatement clause. However, the subsequent circular issued in 1988, which has not superseded the previous circular issued in 1980 specifically prohibits opening of automatic letter of credit. Automatic letter of credit means without reinstatement clause. The petitioner being a Chartered Accountant, cannot be permitted to say that he was not aware of those terms especially when he has been in the banking service from 1972 onwards. When the petitioner himself has admitted opening of letter of credit without reinstatement clause, as an officer have the sanction power to the limit extending upto Rs.10 lakhs cannot go beyond the same by allowing the letter of credit without reinstatement clause and it is the crux of the charge. In as much as the petitioner has not rebutted the evidence produced on the side of the Management, it is not open to the petitioner to complain about violation of natural justice. 18. As far as the documents are concerned, the non-production is only an useless formality and opportunity has been given to examine, which he did and having specifically admitted to the opening of letter of credit without reinstatement clause, the documents were not relevant. Even assuming that opening of such letter of credit without reinstatement clause was known to the Zonal Office, that does not mean that charge become baseless. There is absolutely no prejudice caused to the petitioner in non-production of the said documents. 19. In respect of the Zonal Office files, privilege were claimed, however, the petitioner has produced xerox copies of the documents and the petitioner has at no point of time raised any prejudice caused to him during the time of enquiry. Therefore, the claim of violation of principles of Natural Justice is only a futile attempt. He would also rely upon the judgment reported in K.S. Varadarajan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal), ( 2005 (1) CTC 538 ). He would submit that the Appellate Authority and the Disciplinary Authority have exhaustively dealt with the matter and therefore, the scope of judicial review is restricted. He would fairly submit that it is true that there is no allegation of corruption against the petitioner. 20. I have heard Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gave my anxious thoughts to various issues involved in this case. 21. He would fairly submit that it is true that there is no allegation of corruption against the petitioner. 20. I have heard Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gave my anxious thoughts to various issues involved in this case. 21. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Chief Manager, Janpath Branch during the year 1988-1990, the period to which the charges relate. The first charge which is stated to have been proved in the enquiry based on which the order of dismissal has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority and as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, specifically states that the petitioner while working as Chief Manager in the branch office at Janpath, New Delhi during 19891990 opened number of revolving letter of credit in various accounts of Indana Group of Companies and the said revolving letter of credit were opened without reinstatement clause which is against the Terms of Sanction, Manual of Instructions and the Central Office Guidelines. The original charge sheet is dated 10.01.1991. Much before the charge sheet, by a letter dated 28.11.1990, which was marked as ME 49 in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has stated: “Please note that I have given my explanations for opening of letters of credits and I have never denied opening of letter of credit. Nevertheless, I may mention that wherever I have opened the letters of credits it has been done under the impression that it was within the delegated powers of the Chief Manager of the branch. Nevertheless, I may mention that wherever I have opened the letters of credits it has been done under the impression that it was within the delegated powers of the Chief Manager of the branch. However, it was only on 08.09.1990, when the undersigned met the Assistant General Manger, along with Mr.SK Goyal, Chief Officer Advances, B/O Janpath and Mr.CV Jain, Financial Analyst posted at the Branch, the subtle difference between opening of letter of credit on revolving basis with reinstatement clause and without reinstatement clause dawned on me.” He has also further stated that: “However, please note that I was always under the impression that the above letters of credits opening are within the delegated powers of the Chief Manager of the Branch and I was opening these letters of credits presuming that it is within the sanctioned limit” Thus, it is in clear terms a candid admission on the part of the petitioner that he has been allowed to open letter of credit without reinstatement clause, however, stating that he has no knowledge about the subtle difference between the letter of credit on revolving basis with reinstatement clause and without reinstatement clause. 22. It is seen from the circular of the bank dated 18.06.1980, which was marked as ME 54 in the departmental proceedings that it relates to delegation of authority to the officers with lending powers. In the said circular, the lending power limit of Assistant General Managers is Rs.10.00 lakhs and Chief / Divisional Managers is Rs.5.00 lakhs etc., and there is no dispute that the said circular dated 18.06.1980, relates purely on the lending power of hierarchy of officers. 23. By a subsequent circular dated 08.09.1980, which is marked as ME 55, certain clarifications have been issued to the earlier circular dated 18.06.1980. The clarification relates to various heads like Other Term Loans, Education Loans, Renewal of Limits, Commodities Under Selective Credit Control, Trade Advances, Overdraft Facilities in Savings Bank Account and Letters of Credit. Under the said circular, the clarification regarding Letters of Credit is stated as follows: “8. Letters of Credit: Sanctioning powers have been specified under Group IV for opening letters of credit, either on clean basis or on D.P. Basis. We have no objection to the delegates exercising these powers for opening Revolving Letters of Credit (D.P. basis and not D.A. basis), subject to incorporating in the relative L/Cs the “Reinstatement Clause”. Letters of Credit: Sanctioning powers have been specified under Group IV for opening letters of credit, either on clean basis or on D.P. Basis. We have no objection to the delegates exercising these powers for opening Revolving Letters of Credit (D.P. basis and not D.A. basis), subject to incorporating in the relative L/Cs the “Reinstatement Clause”. All the delegates, however, shall not open any L/C which is an “Automatic Revolving Letter of Credit”.” 24. It cannot be said, as correctly found by the disciplinary authority that the clarification circular dated 08.09.1980, is not binding on the petitioner on the ground that the said circular dated 08.09.1980, cannot go beyond the original circular dated 18.06.1980. Further in terms of the said circular dated 08.09.1980, which is in continuance of earlier circular dated 18.06.1980, which relates to the lending power of officials, it is very clear that subject to the lending powers of the officials, no one of the officers are permitted to open letter of credit which is an automatic revolving letter of credit. It is also made clear that there is no objection for opening revolving letter of credit subject to the reinstatement clause. 25. The subsequent circular issued by the bank dated 22.10.1988, is only relating to revised lending powers issued on 18.06.1980, 02.02.1982, 17.01.1983 and 28.10.1986 and by such revision of lending powers, it does not mean that clarification given on 08.09.1980, under the head Letters of Credit are superseded by the said circular dated 22.10.1988, especially in the absence of any such specific clause in the circular dated 22.10.1988, super ceding the previous circulars. The charge in this regard is clear that the petitioner has opened revolving letters of credit without reinstatement clause, which in terms of the said circular dated 08.09.1980, is clearly prohibited. 26. A reading of the letter of the petitioner dated 28.11.1990, along with Charge No.1, shows that there is no discrepancy at all. The charge in this regard is clear that the petitioner has opened revolving letters of credit without reinstatement clause, which in terms of the said circular dated 08.09.1980, is clearly prohibited. 26. A reading of the letter of the petitioner dated 28.11.1990, along with Charge No.1, shows that there is no discrepancy at all. Even though it is stated in the counter affidavit of the respondents that: “Banks do not issue revolving letters of credit with automatic reinstatement clause”, which according to them mean opening of letter of credit without reinstatement clause, the counter affidavit makes it very clear as follows: “In the case of revolving letter of credit, with the restriction clause the liability of the opening bank will be restricted to the amount of the letter of credit, whereas in the case of revolving letter of credit without such restriction clause, the liability of the letter of credit opening will increase to the number of times by which the letter of credit revolves.” Therefore, it is clear that charges relate to opening of letter of credit by the petitioner without reinstatement clause. It means that opening of such facilities without reinstatement clause, will make the bank liable for multiple transaction which are in the form of repeated financial transactions. The same may run into many months in which case, there is a possibility of overdrawing of multi fold extent, that is the reason why the circular dated 08.09.1980, prohibits such opening of revolving letter of credit without reinstatement clause and that has been made equivalent in the said circular as “Automatic revolving letter of credit”. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the charge is defective is not acceptable at all. 27. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the letter of credit opened by the petitioner has in fact contained reinstatement clause as it is seen in ME 16 which was annexed to the charge memo is also baseless. It is true that ME 16 originally contains a clause about reinstatement advice and subsequently on the request of Foremost Industries the petitioner removed that clause by letter dated 21.06.1989, which is marked as ME 18 which formed part of ME 16. The petitioner has in fact deleted the clause followed by letter of Foremost Industries dated 21.06.1989, which is marked as ME 17. The petitioner has in fact deleted the clause followed by letter of Foremost Industries dated 21.06.1989, which is marked as ME 17. The relevant passage is as follows: “And further negotiation be made only on receipt of reinstatement advice.” Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had in fact opened letter of credit without reinstatement clause. 28. The foremost among the complaints is the violation of the principles of natural justice which relates to non-production of some of the documents relating to communication from the Zonal Office. It is true that the Enquiry Officer, has been stating that such records would be furnished but ultimately, has informed that those records are not traceable and in respect of some records, privilege has been raised by the respondents. At the same time, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has produced 83 documents pertaining to the Zonal Office which are xerox copies and the same has been taken into account by the enquiry officer but has questioned as to how such documents were obtained when originals were missing in the Zonal Office. Be that as it may, the crux of the contention by the petitioner is that in the xerox copies of those documents, it is clear that when the conduct of the petitioner in granting letter of credit without reinstatement clause being periodically informed to the Zonal Office which was not objected to. In fact in the agenda of the meeting which are held periodically, in respect of the two companies, the matters have been taken up and ultimately decided that the financial position of the companies are satisfactory containing the signature of the Deputy General Manager who happens to be the Disciplinary Authority as it is seen in DE 86, which is one of the Board meeting resolution with Balance Sheet. It is true that in the said copies of the documents the Disciplinary Authority has also signed along with other officials viz., Chief Manager etc., including the petitioner being the Branch Manager, but a reading of the said documents, no where reveal that the Zonal Office or Disciplinary Authority himself has considered about the opening of the letter of credit by the petitioner without reinstatement clause. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that production of originals of the said xerox copies of the Zonal Office would have been helpful to the petitioner has no meaning. 29. The enquiry proceedings show that in respect of 83 documents relevance of which have been explained by defence representative to the Inquiring Authority, the Inquiring Authority on 20.03.1995, has specifically stated that: “Documents listed in the Interim List numbering 83 are delivered herewith.” which shows that relevant documents have been furnished to the petitioner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said as if any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 30. The Enquiry proceedings shows that all the 83 documents requested by the petitioner has been shown except one file pertaining to Foremost industries (I) Ltd, yet to be traced by the Janpath Branch. It was after disclosing all files except one as stated above, the Presiding Officer has informed that the files of Zonal Office cannot be shown as there are privileged documents and ultimately it was informed that files have been missing at Janpath branch and not traceable in spite of efforts. 31. In respect of the said documents, which was specifically admitted by the defence representative that the said documents were pursued and notes taken and merely because those notes were destroyed by the petitioner's representative on the belief that documents will be furnished, it is not a ground to state as if the petitioner was not aware of the documents at all. It is also admitted by the defence representative during the enquiry on 20.03.1995, which is as follows: “As desired by you, we have gone through the 83 discovered documents and were preparing the relevancy from 10.A.M. to 4.00 P.M.” It is relevant to point out that on 06.09.1995, the petitioner being the charge-sheeted officer has informed the Inquiring Authority as follows: “I deny all the allegations, made against me, in charge sheet by the Management. The management case brought on the record has not proved even a single charge against me. The management witnesses who deposed in support of the Management case also did not prove any of the allegations contained in the charge sheet. Neither the documents nor the witnesses could even slightly hint at any misconduct on my part, to warrant the present charge sheet. The management witnesses who deposed in support of the Management case also did not prove any of the allegations contained in the charge sheet. Neither the documents nor the witnesses could even slightly hint at any misconduct on my part, to warrant the present charge sheet. In the absence of management's failure to prove any of the charges, I feel that I am vindicated from the charge sheet and, therefore, the charge sheet should be dismissed as baseless” Further in categorical terms he has stated that he has not produced any witnesses or documents as follows: “In this connection, I once again state that I am not producing any witnesses to prove the charge sheet. I would be merely relying on the exhibits in support of my defence case.” 32. It is also found that on 09.09.1995, the xerox copies of the Zonal Office files have been produced numbering 26 documents by the petitioner. In spite of objections by the Presenting Officer on behalf of the Employer, the Inquiring Authority has allowed the said documents which is as follows: “Normally we are not accepting the xerox copies of exhibits in enquiry. However, considering the peculiar circumstances under which the xerox are submitted, we allow the defence to submit the xerox of the documents only after being duly examined the relevancy. As regards to your submitting the relevancy of earlier 83 documents without being examined in the enquiry proceedings, I do not admit the same.” Therefore, it is clear that as far as the xerox copies of Zonal Office numbering 26 documents have been taken into consideration and in respect of 83 documents except one, all other documents were admittedly pursued by the petitioner. As narrated above, they are relating to various proceedings of the bank and reference to which does not show that the petitioner has opened the revolving letter of credit without reinstatement clause. It is relevant to note that the petitioner by his order dated 11.09.1998, has in fact admitted clearly that due opportunity has been given during the enquiry. 33. As narrated above, they are relating to various proceedings of the bank and reference to which does not show that the petitioner has opened the revolving letter of credit without reinstatement clause. It is relevant to note that the petitioner by his order dated 11.09.1998, has in fact admitted clearly that due opportunity has been given during the enquiry. 33. Therefore, the over all factual position ascertained based on the enquiry proceedings, it is clear that by non-production of 83 documents from the Zonal Office, which are either claimed to be missing or claimed to be privileged documents which were in fact pursued by the petitioner, as admitted by him, has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner at all. On the other hand xerox copies of 26 documents from the Zonal Office produced by the petitioner have been admitted. 34. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 24.05.1999, has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner recorded a finding that no fresh or additional details/information are brought out by the charge sheeted officer and confirmed the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. 35. As per Regulation 17 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, a reference to the entire disciplinary proceedings, makes it clear that procedure contemplated under Regulation 6 of the said Regulations 1976, have been complied with even though it is stated in proviso to Regulation 6(4) that in case where the articles of charge are admitted by the officer/employee it may not be necessary to hold an enquiry. An elaborate enquiry has been conducted. Therefore, there is no procedural flaw in the disciplinary proceedings by the respondents. 36. While considering about the non-supply of documents where the same was prejudicial to the interest of the delinquent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce ( (2006) 10 SCC 572 ) has held that in the absence of any allegation of mala fides, bias or violation of principles of natural justice, non-supply of a document, where such omission caused no prejudice to the delinquent, did not amount to denial of reasonable opportunity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held on the factual matrix of that case in para 13 as follows: “13. Mr G.C. Luthra went to the box as PW 2. He denied to have received the amount of Rs 10 lakhs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held on the factual matrix of that case in para 13 as follows: “13. Mr G.C. Luthra went to the box as PW 2. He denied to have received the amount of Rs 10 lakhs. In cross-examination he denied to have given any letter of authority for transfer of funds from one account to another account. He also denied to have issued any receipt for Rs.10 lakhs towards the disposal of any property to M/s Moradabad Builders. Mr G.C. Luthra in cross-examination further denied that he either collected the TPO for Rs.10 lakhs or gave instructions to the appellant for crediting it to various accounts. The appellant after obtaining adverse statement against him in cross-examination did not further cross-examine Mr G.C. Luthra by confronting him with the alleged signature of Mr G.C. Luthra. At the close of the enquiry, the appellant himself requested the enquiry officer to obtain the opinion of a handwriting expert. It was done by him to test the denial of the statement of Mr G.C. Luthra in cross-examination. The report so obtained confirmed the statement of Mr G.C. Luthra in cross-examination. The appellant could not impeach the statement of Mr G.C. Luthra in cross-examination that he never gave any letter of authority for transfer of funds from one account to another account. He had never issued any receipt for Rs 10 lakhs towards the disposal of any property to M/s Moradabad Builders. The appellant has accepted the statement of Mr G.C. Luthra. The handwriting expert confirmed the statement of Mr G.C. Luthra in cross-examination. No prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused to the appellant by non-furnishing of the copy of the handwriting expert confirming the statement of Mr G.C. Luthra in cross-examination. There is no allegation of mala fides, bias or violation of principles of natural justice, which has been brought to our notice.” While considering about the violation of Regulations governing the Bank employees, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in para 18 that merely because there is no amount of loss caused to the bank it is not a ground to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct of a bank officer viz., “18. It will be noticed that the appellant was charged for the alleged violation of Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations, 1982. Regulation 3(1) reads: “3. It will be noticed that the appellant was charged for the alleged violation of Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations, 1982. Regulation 3(1) reads: “3. (1) Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer.” The regulation ensures that every officer at all times takes all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank officer. Such regulations are made to instill the public confidence in the bank so that the interests of customers/depositors are well safeguarded. In such a situation the fact that no amount was lost to the bank would be no ground to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct of a bank officer.” 37. Applying the dictum laid down above to the facts of the present case, the charges leveled against the petitioner are under Regulation 3 (1) & (3) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 which are as follows: “3. (1) Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. (2)..... (3) No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior.” read with Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, which relates to penalties, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment especially when the Disciplinary Authority has exhaustively dealt with the entire issue in a threadbare manner. 38. While considering about the nature of the Appellate Authority order, the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in K.S. aradarajan Vs. 38. While considering about the nature of the Appellate Authority order, the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in K.S. aradarajan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal), Madras (Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947), Labour Welfare Building, D.M.S. Compound, Madras and another reported in ( 2005 (1) CTC 538 ) has held that the Appellate Authority cannot be expected to write an elaborate order like a judgment of a regular Civil Court. The relevant para 5 is as follows: “5. It must be understood that the appellate authority is the Deputy Labour Commissioner and he is not expected to write an elaborate and as good a judgment as a regular Civil Court would do. He is only an executive authority and we cannot expect the executive authority to write as good a judgment as a trained judicial officer. Moreover, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence nor can it go into the question of adequacy of evidence. As long as there is some evidence in support of the charges this Court cannot interfere.” 39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in State Bank of India and Others Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde ( (2006) 7 SCC 212 ): 2006-III-LLJ 563 that officers of bank are holding position of trust and therefore they deserve no leniency in punishment and the judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merits on re-appreciation of evidence. It is held in para 6 and 21 as follows: “6. Before we proceed further, we may observe at this stage that it is unfortunate that the High Court has acted as an Appellate Authority despite the consistent view taken by this Court that the High Court and the Tribunal while exercising the judicial review do not act as an Appellate Authority: “Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority.” (See Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan1, SCC p.379, para 11.) 21. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority.” (See Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan1, SCC p.379, para 11.) 21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency may be shown to the respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance such submission. As already said, the respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently.” 40. As far as the issue relating to Jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, it is true that the charges against the petitioner were made while he was working in the Janpath Branch, New Delhi during 1989-1990, an enquiry was conducted there and order of the Disciplinary Authority was passed at New Delhi. The Appellate Authority is situated in Bombay and by the time the appeal was disposed of, the petitioner was working at Chennai and therefore the order was communicated to the petitioner at Chennai and the petitioner was accordingly dismissed from service when he was working at Chennai. Since, admittedly the petitioner was not kept under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry, and after the Appellate Authority's order has been dismissed, it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. As it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in para 6 in Ex. Rect (MP) A. Madurai Veeran No.7779447K Vs. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others ( 2006 (1) CTC 732 ) which is as follows: “6. As it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in para 6 in Ex. Rect (MP) A. Madurai Veeran No.7779447K Vs. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others ( 2006 (1) CTC 732 ) which is as follows: “6. These correspondences between the petitioner and some of the respondents clearly indicate that part of the cause of action has definitely arisen within the territory of Madras High Court, within Tamil Nadu and subsequently within the territory of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. In our opinion, it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench). Our aforesaid conclusion receives considerable support from several decisions, including that of the Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007 (7) SCC 640).” 41. In view of the same, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the impugned order of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are not liable to be interfered with, since there is no illegality or perversity in the said order. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs.