Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 583 (MP)

S. K. Shrivastava v. State Bank of India, Jayant

2008-04-11

R.K.GUPTA

body2008
ORDER 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order Annexure P-8 dated 6.5.1995 whereby the punishment has been imposed on the petitioner of removal from service. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal by passing an order which is Annexure P-9 to the petition. 2. The facts leading to the present case are that petitioner at the relevant time was posted on the post of Cashier cum clerk and a charge sheet against the petitioner was issued which is Annexure P-1 dated 10.4.1991 which is also filed by the respondents as Annexure R-l. In the said charge sheet for charges against the petitioner were framed. In the said charge sheet it was the charge against the petitioner that the petitioner fraudulently has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 3,200/- on 14.6.1988 from the Saving Bank Account of Mr. Jaglal, who already expired on 1.12.1978. Similarly, the second charge against the petitioner was that on 8.7.1988 an amount of Rs. 2,700/- had been fraudulently withdrawn from the Saving Bank Account of Shri Ram Dhani who already expired on 3.7.1980. For the third charge, the petitioner was not found guilty by the Enquiry officer. The petitioner was found guilty partly for Charge No.4 which relates to the allegation against the petitioner that he had borrowed money from Shri Amrik Singh in contravention of the Service Rules and since the petitioner could not repay the money in time, the petitioner had made four undated fake entries of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- in the Demand Loan Account No. 13/169 of Shri Amrik Singh. 3. The petitioner was also issued a supplementary charge sheet which is filed along with the petition as Annexure P-2 dated 26.8.1991. In this supplementary charge sheet, three charges were framed against the petitioner. The first charge against the petitioner is that on 10.8.1988, an amount of Rs. 1,200/- had been fraudulently withdrawn from the Savings Bank Account No. 1108 of Shri Satya Prakash. The aforesaid account was inoperative and for several years the said account was not operated. The said amount was fraudulently withdrawn by the petitioner. The second charge in the supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner was that on 12.5.1990, a fake entry of Rs. 1,200/- had been fraudulently withdrawn from the Savings Bank Account No. 1108 of Shri Satya Prakash. The aforesaid account was inoperative and for several years the said account was not operated. The said amount was fraudulently withdrawn by the petitioner. The second charge in the supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner was that on 12.5.1990, a fake entry of Rs. 5,000/- was made in the Recurring Deposit Account No. 3016/14 of Shri Amrik Singh and the balance of the account had also been increased by Rs. 5,000/- and a false entry was made by the petitioner. The third charge against the petitioner was that on 6.4.1990, he had increased the balance in the Recurring Deposit Account No. 2481 and 2827 standing in the name of Shri Kuldeep Singh by Rs. 1,000/- each. There had also been a third charge sheet against the petitioner which was issued on 20.11.1992 (Annexure P-3) in which also allegations were made against the petitioner. 4. In the Departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer with reference to the charge sheet Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3 recorded the following findings which are as under: "(i) The Presenting Officer has not produced any material evidence for proving the allegations of borrowing money from Shri Amrik Singh. He has, however, tried to prove it through circumstantial evidence. (ii) The CSE has undisputedly admitted for having made 4 fictitious entries of Rs. 5,000/- each in the two demand loan accounts of Shri Amrik Singh which he cutted (scored off) subsequently by himself. (iii) The Presenting Officer has tried successfully to prove the allegation of "willful commission with malafide intention and involvement of CSE to defraud the Bank" by producing PEX-14 to 16 in the floor of the enquiry. (iv) The argument of the Defence counsel that CSE had made all the bogus entries in the respective demand loan account of Amrik Singh due to clerical mistake is not convincing and acceptable. (v) The CSE apart from having made 3 bogus entries in the demand loan account No. 13/169 of Amrik Singh has put through several transactions in the DIL account No. 15/51 of Amrik Singh including calculating of interest preparing of vouchers etc. for closing the account, which cannot be done accidently or erroneously. No defence was given for this part of transaction put through by CSE. for closing the account, which cannot be done accidently or erroneously. No defence was given for this part of transaction put through by CSE. (vi) The entries exercise appears to have been done intentionally in a planned way having some ulterior motive behind it in order to defraud the Bank to the tune of a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. However, it is not clear from the deliberations whether it was done for (i) repaying the borrowed money by CSE (ii) extending monetary benefits to Shri Amrik Singh or (iii) drawing money from the Bank fraudulently through Shri Amrik Singh by CSE for deriving his own behefits. (vii) There is no material difference between the two words i.e. fake entries and fictitious entries used by the Disciplinary Authority and the CSE. Both the words clearly indicate bogus transactions put through in the account. In the light of the above deliberations the charge No.4 is partly proved. (i) Wilful commission with malafide intention and involvement of CSE to defraud the Bank is proved. (ii) Borrowing money from Shri Amrik Singh is not proved.)" 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made two submissions, firstly he submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer are perverse. It is seen that the withdrawal of the amount fraudulently from the account of the persons those who have expired has already been admitted by the petitioner and on the basis of the admission, the Enquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thus, the charges which were admitted for which the petitioner since has been found guilty, therefore, it cannot be said that the findings which have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. 6. During the course of arguments, nothing has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the admission of the petitioner was obtained by adopting the coercive methods and, therefore, the admission as such could not have been relied upon. The Enquiry officer has discussed the reply submitted by the petitioner and also the statements and on that basis the Enquiry officer came to the conclusion on the basis of statement of admission which has been submitted by the petitioner with reference to the charges that petitioner is guilty of the charges. The Enquiry officer has discussed the reply submitted by the petitioner and also the statements and on that basis the Enquiry officer came to the conclusion on the basis of statement of admission which has been submitted by the petitioner with reference to the charges that petitioner is guilty of the charges. Apart from the aforesaid, this Court exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer by appreciating the evidence afresh. The scope of judicial review is limited and the Court is entitled to look into whether it is a case of some evidence or it is a case of no evidence for the purpose of perversity in the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. 6A. On the basis of the aforesaid principle, if it is to be seen that the Enquiry officer has arrived at a conclusion on the basis of the admission with reference to the charges for which the petitioner was found guilty then it cannot be said that there had been no evidence against the petitioner to hold him guilty of the charges. It is a case where there had been some evidence in the enquiry and the Enquiry officer was entitled to rely upon the said evidence and thus the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse finding. 7. The next argument which the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted is that in the present case the account holders have not been examined. In this reference it is to be seen that the charge No.1 and 2 in the charge sheet Annexure P-l and also in the supplementary charge sheet it was a charge against the petitioner that he has withdrawn the amount fraudulently particularly when the account holders have already expired. The petitioner has also admitted the guilt of withdrawal of the amount then because of death of account holders with reference to Charge No. 1 and 2 of Annexure P-l and with reference to Charge No. 1 of Annexure P-2, it was not possible to examine the account holders as they were already expired. 8. The petitioner has also admitted the guilt of withdrawal of the amount then because of death of account holders with reference to Charge No. 1 and 2 of Annexure P-l and with reference to Charge No. 1 of Annexure P-2, it was not possible to examine the account holders as they were already expired. 8. Apart from this, since the petitioner himself admitted the guilt of withdrawal of amount fraudulently and the withdrawal as such was also found to be against the procedure of the Bank with reference to Charge No.1 of the Supplementary charge sheet that no token was issued to the petitioner and the amount without being any token was withdrawn and the withdrawal of the amount was also accepted by the petitioner without token. On the basis of the same, it cannot be said that merely because no account holders were examined, it cannot be said that the charges against the petitioner as per the charge sheet could not have been proved as the account holders were not examined and the submission so made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in the present case the punishment imposed of removal from service is disproportionate. 10. The submission so made by learned counsel for the petitioner is considered. 11. It is seen in the present case the petitioner has committed serious irregularities in a sensitive Institution like the respondent Bank. The petitioner was employed on the post of Cashier cum Clerk. The charges against the petitioner which have been found proved relates to withdrawal of amount from the Saving Bank account of the persons those who have already expired. The petitioner has also admitted his guilt. 12. Under the circumstances, a sensitive Institution like Bank has to function by enjoying the trust and confidence of the public. The petitioner being Cashier cum Clerk if withdrew the amount being accountant of the dead persons from their Saving Bank Account which were not operated for many years then the sensitive institution like the Bank cannot enjoy the confidence and trust of the public where the people deposit their amount which was fraudulently withdrawn. 13. The petitioner being Cashier cum Clerk if withdrew the amount being accountant of the dead persons from their Saving Bank Account which were not operated for many years then the sensitive institution like the Bank cannot enjoy the confidence and trust of the public where the people deposit their amount which was fraudulently withdrawn. 13. In view of the aforesaid, it is not a case where the conscience of this Court is shocked and I am of the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is commensurate to the misconduct which was found proved against the petitioner. 14. No other point is argued. 15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is devoid of substance and is dismissed.