Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 534 (PAT)

Vinay Kant Thakur v. Allahabad Bank

2008-03-24

BARIN GHOSH, C.M.PRASAD

body2008
Judgment 1. A charge-sheet was issued to the appellant by the employer Bank. Appellant gave a reply thereto. Such reply resulted into an enquiry. After the enquiry report was commented upon by the appellant, it was proposed by the employer to punish the appellant by deducting ten of his increments but the said punishment was not meted out, instead the same was kept in abeyance. 2. Subsequent thereto a fresh charge-sheet was issued which contained almost identical allegations as were levelled against the appellant in the first charge-sheet. Appellant gave a reply thereto. Thereupon an enquiry was held. Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that some of the charges stand proved and the remaining have been partially proved. Appellant gave his comments thereon and upon consideration of the fact that a charge-sheet was issued, which resulted in a tentative decision of awarding a punishment of deducting ten increments, and upon consideration of the second charge-sheet, the reply thereto, the enquiry report, comments thereon and all other materials on record, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal against the appellant. After having had failed in his attempt to assail the said order of dismissal before the appellate authority, appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which having been dismissed by a learned Single Judge, appellant is before us in this appeal. 3. The principal contention of the appellant in the writ petition was, which has been repeated before us, that the allegations being the basis of the charges levelled against the appellant were also the basis of the first information report which was thoroughly investigated upon by the appropriate police authority but the same yielded no result and, accordingly, a report in final form was filed before the appropriate Magistrate, which has been accepted by the Magistrate. It was thus contended that once there is an opinion that there is no substance in the allegations, for the self-same allegations, it was unjust on the part of the disciplinary authority to hold the appellant guilty. 4. In this connection reference was placed upon a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129 . 4. In this connection reference was placed upon a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129 . In that case the Hon ble Supreme Court found as a fact that on a hot contest and after a regular trial the criminal court granted an honourable acquittal to the employee. The Court found as a fact that the allegations in the departmental proceeding as well as in the proceeding before the criminal court were identical and sought to be proved by the same set of evidence. In the instant case the matter did not reach the criminal court at all. It was reported to the criminal court that there is no ground for framing a charge against the appellant on the basis of allegations made in the first information report. No charge was accordingly framed and the criminal court had no occasion to apply its mind whether the allegations against the appellant, as contained in the first information report, can be proved by evidence. We, therefore, feel that placing reliance upon the said judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court is of no use to the appellant and the ground that the appellant has been absolved by the criminal court is also not available to the appellant for, at the most, he has been absolved only by the police and not by the criminal court. 5. The next contention of the appellant is that the disciplinary authority was not entitled to look into the records which came into being upon issuance of the first charge-sheet and he having looked into the same the order is vitiated. The punishment order does not show that the disciplinary authority looked into the records which came into being upon issuance of the first charge-sheet. He only recorded the fact that the first charge-sheet was issued and the same ultimately resulted in the decision of awarding punishment of withdrawing ten increments of the appellant which decision was kept in abeyance. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that while passing the dismissal order, the disciplinary authority looked into papers which he was not entitled to look into is not substantiated by the records before us or in other words the same has not been borne out from the records. 6. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that while passing the dismissal order, the disciplinary authority looked into papers which he was not entitled to look into is not substantiated by the records before us or in other words the same has not been borne out from the records. 6. The third and the principal contention of the appellant is that the punishment as has been awarded is utterly dis-proportionate. It is the contention of the appellant that no customer of the Bank made any complain against any of the functions discharged by the appellant as the Manager of the Bank during the relevant time. On the other hand there are documents on record which suggest that the customers of the Bank have expressed their satisfaction as regards their Bank A/Cs maintained with the Bank. It was contended that admittedly there is no allegation nor there is any substance to suggest that even a single paisa of the Bank had been lost either by way of misappropriation or otherwise. The appellant seeks to contend that at the best the enquiry revealed that there had been irregularities which did not harm either the Bank or any of the customers and, accordingly, the punishment meted out to the appellant is utterly disproportionate. 7. The charge-sheet with which we are concerned contains seven charges. However, the principal charge was utilization of the Bank for collecting payment of a cheque, the payer whereof was not of a customer of the Bank, and thereupon to open an account for the purpose of crediting the proceeds of the collection and lastly to close the account to withdraw the money so collected. It was alleged that without the authority of the customers, their accounts were debited for the purpose of facilitating such debited amount to be utilized for many purposes including the purpose of reducing the debit balance of the appellant in the Banks suspense account. The reply to the charge-sheet is not on record. However, the comments of the appellant on the enquiry report as well as his appeal are on record. In addition to that all his assertions pertaining to the charge-sheet as well as the enquiry report are in the writ petition as well as in the papers filed in this Letters Patent Appeal. Nowhere in those the reason for acting in such manner has been indicated. In addition to that all his assertions pertaining to the charge-sheet as well as the enquiry report are in the writ petition as well as in the papers filed in this Letters Patent Appeal. Nowhere in those the reason for acting in such manner has been indicated. It has not been indicated why the appellant, being the Manager of the Bank, permitted himself to be used by a non-customer to collect a cheque. He has also not explained why did he think it to be a requirement to open an account in the name of a person whose name had been written by him in the application form for the purpose of crediting the proceeds of such collection. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant wanted to bring to our notice Banking Laws and Circulars for the purpose of suggesting that it was Bill Disaccounting Facility, according to which, a customer of a Bank of one branch can go to another branch of the Bank at another place and have his cheque collected through that branch of the Bank where he is not a customer. Little we know of Bill Disaccounting Facility, the same does not authorize what the learned counsel for the appellant submitted. However, even assuming that the same is permissible, we were not informed why it became necessary to open an account after collection in the branch where the customer was not an account holder. It has come on record and even accepted by the appellant in his comments against the enquiry report that a part of the debt lying in the suspense account of the Bank in his name was reduced to some extent by an amount transferred from an account of a customer of the Bank effected by a voucher made by the appellant. There is not even a whisper as to why a customer would pay off a debt of the appellant due to the Bank. 9. There is not even a whisper as to why a customer would pay off a debt of the appellant due to the Bank. 9. Although there is no assertion in black and white that transfer of amounts from the accounts of the customers, as were made by the appellant through vouchers, were contemporaneously authorized by the customers of those accounts, but it was insinuated that authorizations have been removed from the records of the Bank by referring to an answer given by a Banks witness to the effect that some papers from the bundles, which were produced in loose, may have been removed. 10. A Bank employee is not an ordinary employee, for Bank is not an ordinary employer. Bank is custodian of public money and, accordingly, is custodian of public faith and trust. It is the personnel of the Bank who personify the Bank and, accordingly, the faith and trust is upon the persons, who are associated with the Bank as its employees. An employee of the Bank personifies the Bank. He is in a fiduciary position vis-a-vis the Bank and the public. A slight mistrust on such a person may bring about a conclusion that his association with the Bank any further may not be good and, if such an opinion is formed on the basis of infringement of such fiduciary relationship by the person concerned, it is beyond competence of judicial review Court to interfere with such opinion. 11. For the reasons as above, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.