Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 796 (GAU)

Bharati Boro v. State Bank of India

2011-09-23

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is the order of penalty imposed on the petitioner pursuant to a departmental proceeding which has been affirmed on departmental appeal and review. The brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as follows : While the petitioner (now substituted by his wife on his death) was working as Senior Assistant in the particular branch of the respondent bank, a memorandum of charge-sheet dated 08.11.2005 (Annexure-A) was issued alleging misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 8,10,000/- by increasing/altering the figures/amounts of the Govt. bills numbering 11 (eleven) indicated in the charge sheet. For a ready reference, the memorandum of charge sheet is reproduced below : MEMORANDUM PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL Shri Thaneswar Boro Senior Assistant (U/S) State Bank of India Rangiya Branch CHARGE SHEET It is alleged that while working as Senior Assistant/Paying Cashier at our Rangiya Branch during the period from December 2004 to April, 2005, you had committed the following irregularities. (i) While making payment you had altered/increased the figures/amount of the following Government bills of different State Government Department in the Government Debit Scrolls as well as in the Cash Payment Register subsequent to the bills being passed by the concerned passing officer and sent for payment. Whereas you had made cash payment to the Government Cashiers the actual amounts as appearing in the Government Bills and passed by the Passing Officer, you had misappropriated the difference amounts to the tune of Rs. 8,10,000/- Sl. No. T.V. No. & Date Name of the Deptt. Bill amount (Rs.) Amount inflated by you and debited to the Govt. account (Rs.) Excess Drawn (Rs.) 1. 4513.12.2004 SDO, AH & Vety. Rangiya 20,000.00 1,20,000.00 1,00,000.00 2. 16 17.12.2004 E.E., PHE, Rangiya 5,345.00 15,345.00 10,000.00 3. 103 08.01.2005 Bardal M.E. School 37,205.00 1,37,205.00 1,00,000.00 4. 367A 11.01.2005 BEEO, Rangiya 2032.00 52,032.00 50,000.00 5 538 13.01.2005 Kamalpur H.S. School 7269.00 57,269.00 50,000.00 6. 79 10.02.2005 Maranjana M.E. Madrassa 6299.00 56,299.00 50,000.00 7. 74(A) 24.03.2005 EE, Borolia Div. (Irrigation) 25,000.00 1,25,000.00 1,00,000.00 8. 1123 29.03.2005 BEEO, Rangiya Baranghati Sr. Basic 1676.00 51,676.00 50,000.00 9. 71 31.03.2005 Manager, Eri Seed Grainage, Goreswar 2018.00 1,02,018.00 1,00,000.00 10. 72 08.04.2005 BEEO, Kamalpur (Baronghati TC) 23020.00 1,23,020.00 1,00,000.00 11. 18 11.04.2005 Suptd. Of Sericulture, Rangiya 26,797.00 1,26,797.00 1,00,000.00 Total Excess Drawn = 8,10,000.00 02. 74(A) 24.03.2005 EE, Borolia Div. (Irrigation) 25,000.00 1,25,000.00 1,00,000.00 8. 1123 29.03.2005 BEEO, Rangiya Baranghati Sr. Basic 1676.00 51,676.00 50,000.00 9. 71 31.03.2005 Manager, Eri Seed Grainage, Goreswar 2018.00 1,02,018.00 1,00,000.00 10. 72 08.04.2005 BEEO, Kamalpur (Baronghati TC) 23020.00 1,23,020.00 1,00,000.00 11. 18 11.04.2005 Suptd. Of Sericulture, Rangiya 26,797.00 1,26,797.00 1,00,000.00 Total Excess Drawn = 8,10,000.00 02. By your above acts, you have violated the laid down instructions of the Bank and acted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. Your such acts of negligence rendered yourself liable for initiation of disciplinary action against you. 03. Your above acts are in violation of the provisions as contained in para 5(i) of the Memorandum of Settlement of Disciplinary Action Procedures for Workmen dated the 10th April, 2002. You are, therefore, directed to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against you. 04. Your reply to the above charges should reach the Branch Manger, Rangiya Branch within 15 days from the date of receipt of this charge sheet, failing which it will be deemed that you have no explanation to submit in your defence and the Bank will be free to take any action it may consider fit. In this connection, the list of documents and witnesses to be relied upon in the proceedings are furnished in Annexure-L Please note that the list is not exhaustive and the Bank reserves the right to include/add such other witnesses, documents, correspondences, matters etc. as may be required to establish the charges. 05. Please acknowledge receipt on the duplicate copy of the charge sheet under your full signature with date in token of your having received the original and return the same to us for our further necessary action. Sd/- Asstt. General Manager (R-I) & Disciplinary Authority. 2. On receipt of the charge sheet, the petitioner without dealing with the particulars referred in the same, submitted his reply dated 13.12.2005 (Annexure-B) as follows : The Asstt. General Manger State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Guwahati Date: 13.12.2005 Dear Sir, CHARGE SHEET With reference to you Memo No. AGM/Genl/618 dated 08.11.2005, I hereby deny the alleged charges leveled against me. I request you kindly to exonerate me from the alleged charges leveled against me. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Thaneswar Boro) Senior Asstt. (U/S) 3. In due course, the enquiry officer was appointed and he conducted the enquiry. I request you kindly to exonerate me from the alleged charges leveled against me. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Thaneswar Boro) Senior Asstt. (U/S) 3. In due course, the enquiry officer was appointed and he conducted the enquiry. On conclusion of the same, both the parties, i.e. the petitioner and the disciplinary authority, submitted their written briefs. The enquiry officer in his report dated 02.01.2007 held the petitioner not guilty of the charges with the following conclusions : CONCLUSION:- Presenting officer has not mentioned anything about the Govt. debit scrolls in his brief despite the allegation is made that the figures/amounts therein are altered/increased. All the passing officers of the bills are made prosecution witnesses but they have not also made any statement in the enquiry that the figures/amounts are altered in the Govt. debit scrolls after the bills being passed by them for the actual amount and sent for payment. The reason for non submission of bills as stated by presenting officer in his brief that the bills are in the office of the Accountant General, Govt. of Assam, Guwahati can not be viewed as valid reason for the enquiry in the interest of the justice since the copies of fraud related documents need to be entered in the Branch document Registers and need to be retained under the sole custody of the Branch Manager. Authority letters in the strength of which bank had paid the bill amounts to the bearer of the bills are also not produced although they are to be in the branch record. In view of this and also explanation made in para 1 to 7 above it can not be declared that the allegation made against Shri Thaneswar Boro in the charge sheet as proved. 4. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority addressed the Annexure-F letter dated 16.03.2007 to the petitioner recording therein the notes of disagreement with the enquiry report and asked the petitioner to submit his reply to the same. As in the case of reply in response to the memorandum of charge sheet referred to above, against the note of disagreement also the petitioner without specifically dealing with the points, submitted his reply dated 13.04.2007 (Annexure-G) with the following statements : To The Asstt. As in the case of reply in response to the memorandum of charge sheet referred to above, against the note of disagreement also the petitioner without specifically dealing with the points, submitted his reply dated 13.04.2007 (Annexure-G) with the following statements : To The Asstt. General Manger, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Rangiya, Guwahati Date: 13th April, 2007 (Through the Branch Manager, SBI, Rangiya Branch) Dear Sir, DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY ENQUIRY REPORT CUM FINDINGS Acknowledging your letter No. AGM(I)/GEN/1329 dated 16.03.2007, I like to submit the following points for your perusal. 1. That sir, I was charge sheeted and departmental enquiry was held. During the proceedings of the enquiry, related documents were placed, witnesses were produced and the whole process was concluded after several sittings. Enquiry Officer appointed by you has submitted his findings (enclosed by you) basing on the proceedings of the enquiry. 2. Now you have raised some points vide your above letter of which most of the points were already placed and deliberated upon extensively during the enquiry proceedings. 3. The point now you have raised are not within the framework of the charge sheet issued to me which amounts to denial of natural justice. As per the explanations submitted above, I do not find anything to submit any more. I, therefore, request you kindly to reinstate me in my services exonerating me from all charges on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Proceedings. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Thaneswar Boro) Sr. Asstt. (U/S) SBI, Rangiya Branch 5. After these developments, the disciplinary authority of the bank by its letter dated 28.08.2007 (Annexure-H) communicated the petitioner about the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. The letter also indicated about treating the period of suspension as "not on duty". For a ready reference, the order dated 28.082007 is quoted below : ORDER I, as Disciplinary Authority have gone through and examined the in detail the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry report-cum-findings dated 02.01.2007 of Shri P.K. Baruah, MMGS-III, the Enquiry Officer, in connection with the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against Shri Thaneswar Boro, Sr. Assistant (U/S) vide Memo No. AGM(I)/GEN/698 dated 08.11.2005. 02. After perusal/examination of the relevant papers/documents/records, available circumstantial evidences and the enquiry report-cum-findings, it is observed that the charges/allegations leveled against Shri Thaneswar Boro, Sr. Asstt. (U/S) have been proved. Assistant (U/S) vide Memo No. AGM(I)/GEN/698 dated 08.11.2005. 02. After perusal/examination of the relevant papers/documents/records, available circumstantial evidences and the enquiry report-cum-findings, it is observed that the charges/allegations leveled against Shri Thaneswar Boro, Sr. Asstt. (U/S) have been proved. I have applied my mind dispassionately to the case and taking into consideration all other aggravating and extenuating circumstances, past records and gravity of the misconduct, I propose to inflict the following punishment on Shri Thaneswar Boro, Sr. Assistant (U/S) under gross misconducts as per provisions made in clause 6(a) of Memorandum of Settlement of Disciplinary Act Procedure for Workmen dated 10.04.2002. Be Dismissed without Notice 03. In this connection, I have also decided to treat the period of suspension in respect of Shri Thaneswar Boro, Sr. Asstt. (U/S) as "NOT ON DUTY". Accordingly, no salary and allowances will be paid to Shri Thaneswar Boro, Sr. Asstt. (U/S) for the period of his suspension. However, the subsistence allowance already paid to Shri Boro during the period under suspension will not be recovered on humanitarian grounds. 04. If Shri Boro, the charge sheeted employee, desires to show cause against the nature of proposed punishment, he may appear before me or submit his representation on 14.09.2007 at 4:00 PM at my chamber/room at State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Guwahati, Region-I. If he fails to appear before me or submit his representation as stated above, it will be presumed that he has no submission to make against the proposed punishment and the Bank shall proceed further in the matter accordingly. Sd/- Asstt. General Manger (R-I) & Disciplinary Authority 6. By passing the aforesaid order, the disciplinary authority afforded opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply to the proposed punishment and also to appear before it on 14.09.2007. On 14.09.2007, the petitioner addressed the following letter to the disciplinary authority. As in the earlier two occasions indicated above, on that occasion also the petitioner did not deal with the contention raised in the order quoted above and submitted his reply with a simple denial without urging any grounds of denial. The Asstt. General Manger (Region-I) & Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Guwhati Sir, DISCIPLINARY ACTION With reference to Disciplinary Authority's order dated 28.08.2007 forwarded under the cover of letter No. AGM(I)GEN/559 dated 28.08.2007, I beg to advise as under. The Asstt. General Manger (Region-I) & Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Guwhati Sir, DISCIPLINARY ACTION With reference to Disciplinary Authority's order dated 28.08.2007 forwarded under the cover of letter No. AGM(I)GEN/559 dated 28.08.2007, I beg to advise as under. That the impugned order is arbitrary and also a non speaking order. There is no evidence that the Departmental enquiry proceeding detailed statement of defence/enquiry officer's finding etc. had received due consideration. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am left with no other alternative but to disagree with the contents of the above mentioned letter/order. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Thaneswar Boro) Sr. Asstt. (U/S) SBI, Rangiya Branch 7. The disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of penalty of dismissal from service on 06.10.2007. In the order it was also indicated that period of suspension would be treated as "not on duty". The order is quoted below : FINAL ORDER I, as Disciplinary Authority had given order on 28.08.2007 regarding proposed punishment in respect of Shri Thaneswar Boro, Senior Assistant (U/S), State Bank of India, Rangiya Branch. 02. Shri Thaneswar Boro, Senior Assistant (U/S), appeared before me on 05.10.2007 at 10:45 AM in my chamber for personal hearing. I have heard the submission of Shri Thaneswar Boro, Senior Assistant (U/S) dispassionately and also gone through the representation submitted by him. As no new point was put forward to me during the aforesaid personal hearing and also in the said representation, I have decided to confirm the proposed punishment inflicted on Shri Boro. Accordingly, I hereby order that the penalty of "Be Dismissed Without Notice" under gross misconduct as per provisions made in para/clause 6(a) of Memorandum of Settlement of Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen dated 10.04.2002, be inflicted on Shri Thaneswar Boro, Senior Assistant (U/S), to meet the ends of justice. 03. In this connection, I have also decided to treat the period of suspension in respect of Shri Thaneswar Boro, Senor Assistant (U/S) as "NOT ON DUTY". Accordingly, no salary and allowances will be paid to Shri Thaneswar Boro, Senor Assistant (U/S) for the period of his suspension. However, the subsistence allowance already paid to Shri Boro during the period under suspension will not be recovered on humanitarian grounds. 04. A copy of this order may be served on Shri Thaneswar Boro, Senior Assistant (U/S) in the usual manner. Sd/- Asstt. General Manager & Disciplinary Authority 8. However, the subsistence allowance already paid to Shri Boro during the period under suspension will not be recovered on humanitarian grounds. 04. A copy of this order may be served on Shri Thaneswar Boro, Senior Assistant (U/S) in the usual manner. Sd/- Asstt. General Manager & Disciplinary Authority 8. In response to the said order of penalty and the liberty granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the said order, the petitioner made Annexure-K appeal dated 29.11.2007 to the appellate authority. As in the earlier occasions, on that occasion also the petitioner did not urge any grounds against the said order of penalty, but only referred to the documents indicated therein and prayed for setting aside of the impugned order of penalty. 9. The appellate authority having dismissed the appeal by its order dated 29.01.2008 (Annexure-L), the petitioner preferred a review petition on 03.03.2008 and as on earlier occasions in the review petition also he did not urge any grounds, but prayed for review of the order. The review petition also having been dismissed, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant writ petition. During the pendency of the same he having expired, his wife Smti. Bharati Boro has stepped into his shoes. 10. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the contentions raised in the writ petition. It has been stated that on the face of it, the charges against the petitioner stand established and thus the enquiry officer could not have held that the charges as not established. In this connection, the letter dated 13.06.2005 made by the petitioner to the respondent Bank admitting the charge has also been referred to. Another pertinent point raised in the counter affidavit is that at no point of time the petitioner denied his written confession dated 13.06.2005. It has also been stated that subsequently the petitioner refunded the misappropriated amounts to Govt. accounts through treasury challans. 11. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been contended that the letter dated 13.06.2005 purportedly admitting the misconduct being not part of the enquiry, the respondents cannot place reliance on the same. The petitioner has also denied refund of the misappropriated amounts. 12. I have heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. The petitioner has also denied refund of the misappropriated amounts. 12. I have heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. G. Jalan, learned counsel for the respondent bank. 13. While Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner painstakingly argued referring to the observations made by the enquiry officer and the other materials on record so as to contend that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law, Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the bank referring to the records pertaining to the proceedings produced by him, submitted that on the face of it the petitioner was guilty of the charges, levelled against him. He also submitted that the confidence reposed on the petitioner by the bank having been misutilised by the petitioner towards misappropriating the amounts in question, irrespective of refund of the amounts through treasury challans by the petitioner, the bank rightly decided to terminate the service of the petitioner. 14. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also given my anxious consideration to the materials available on record including the records pertaining to the disciplinary proceeding. My findings are as follows. 15. The charge sheet dated 08.11.2005 (Annexure-A) has been quoted above. On perusal of the same, the methodology adopted by the petitioner towards inflation of the bill amounts is clearly discernible. Such inflation having been made in 11 (eleven) bills, it cannot be said to be an omission and/or mistake in calculating the figures as was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In all the 11 documents there was inflation of the figures by insertion of inflated figures. 16. While it is true that the letter of confession dated 13.06.2005 by which the petitioner had admitted the charge of misappropriation did not form part of the enquiry report, but the said confession coupled with other materials on record cannot be brushed aside, particularly when the same was clearly mentioned in Annexure-F disagreement note dated 16.03.2007. However, I hasten to add that the said letter dated 13.06.2005 is not the basis of anyone of the findings recorded in this judgment. 17. As to what was the reply of the petitioner to the charge-sheet has been noted above. However, I hasten to add that the said letter dated 13.06.2005 is not the basis of anyone of the findings recorded in this judgment. 17. As to what was the reply of the petitioner to the charge-sheet has been noted above. When the charge sheet itself depicted the inflation and the misappropriation made by the petitioner, it was incumbent on his part to deal with all the 11 figures and for that matter, the allegations made in the charge sheet instead of responding to the same with a simple denial and with a request to exonerate him from the charges. 18. On perusal of Annexure-C and Annexure-D written briefs submitted by the Presenting Officer and the representatives of the petitioner, it appears that numerous documents were exhibited including the tempered documents with inflations therein. A little reference to the said documents at this stage will be relevant. 19. In respect of the allegations relating to the bill amounts at serial No. 1, 2 and 3, the relevant documents exhibited are PEX-1(A), PEX-17, PEX-1(D) for serial No. 1; PEX-2(A), PEX-17, PEX-2(D) for serial No. 2 and PEX-3(A), PEX-18, PEX-3(D) and PEX-3(E) for serial No. 3. The said documents are payment register, copies of the statement showing the details of paid Govt. bills during December, 2004 and January, 2005 issued by the Treasury Officer, Rangiya having the entries dated 13.12.2004 and 17.122004. The said documents had been admitted by the defence representatives. 20. As regards the amounts involved in serial No. 4, 5 and 6, the related documents exhibited are PEX-4(A), PEX-18, PEX4(D) and PEX-4(E) for serial No. 4; PEX-5(A), PEX-18, PEX-5(D) and PEX-5(E) for serial No. 5 and PEX-6(A), PEX-19 and PEX-6(D) for serial No. 6. In the written brief, the Presenting Officer clearly indicated the said documents and the contents thereof to show as to how the bills were inflated by the petitioner. The Presenting Officer also referred to the depositions of PW1 and PW 2. 21. As regards the amounts involved in serial No. 7 to 11, the related documents exhibited are PEX-7(A), PEX-20, PEX-7(D) for serial No. 7; PEX-8(A), PEX-20, PEX-8(D) for serial No. 8; PEX-9(A), PEX-20 and PEX-9(D) for serial No. 9; PEX-10(A), PEX-21, PEX-10(D) for serial No. 10 and PEX-11(A)/PEX-21 and PEX-11P) for serial No. 11. 22. 21. As regards the amounts involved in serial No. 7 to 11, the related documents exhibited are PEX-7(A), PEX-20, PEX-7(D) for serial No. 7; PEX-8(A), PEX-20, PEX-8(D) for serial No. 8; PEX-9(A), PEX-20 and PEX-9(D) for serial No. 9; PEX-10(A), PEX-21, PEX-10(D) for serial No. 10 and PEX-11(A)/PEX-21 and PEX-11P) for serial No. 11. 22. As in the other Bills referred to above, in respect of these bills also the Presenting Officer in his written brief had drawn link towards establishing the charge against the petitioner and while doing so he also referred to the depositions made by PW 1, PW 2, PW 5 and PW 6. It was submitted that on the basis of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and also on the basis of the documentary evidence it was evident that the charges leveled against the petitioner stood proved beyond any doubt. 23. As against the above, the defence representative of the petitioner it was submitted that the Govt. debit scroll and payment register were not altered/increased. It was also contended that in absence of any complaint lodged by the Treasury Officer, the charges could not have been levelled against the petitioner. However, simultaneously it was also submitted that the charges were prepared not only on the basis of the Govt. bills in question, but also on the basis of the allegations made by the Treasury Officer. As regards the certificate issued by the Treasury Officer "PEX-17, PEX-18, PEX-19, PEX-20, PEX-21", it was submitted that the said additional documents did not establish the charge as the certificate was not on the basis of the original bills. 24. As regards the plea of the respondent bank that the amount misappropriated was refunded by the petitioner through treasury challans, it was contended that such treasury challans could be signed by any 3rd party on behalf of the tenderer. It was also contended that in the relevant column towards refunding the amount, it was written as "paid in excess through oversight." 25. On the basis of the aforesaid statements made by the disciplinary authority and the petitioner, the enquiry officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not established. While doing so, the said authority heavily placed reliance on the stand of the defence representative that there was no sign of any alteration/inflation in the related documents. The said authority also swallowed the plea that the Govt. While doing so, the said authority heavily placed reliance on the stand of the defence representative that there was no sign of any alteration/inflation in the related documents. The said authority also swallowed the plea that the Govt. bills in question were passed after verification of the amounts/figures in bills. 26. The crucial question for consideration of the enquiry officer was as to whether there was inflation of the bills by putting non-existent figures ahead of the actual figures. The charge was not that of erasing the actual figures so as to substitute them by other figures. As indicated above, the modus operandi towards inflating the bills was to put a figure ahead of the actual figures. As for instance, at serial No. 1 of the charge sheet the bill amount was Rs. 20,000/-, but the same was made Rs. 1,20,000.00 by putting the figure "1" ahead of Rs. 20,000.00. 27. When the above was the modus operandi, naturally the bills themselves did not prima facie indicate the inflation of the amounts by any alteration in the actual figures. The enquiry officer also heavily placed reliance on the treasury challans PEX-1(D) to PEX-11 (D) through which misappropriated amounts were refunded with the remarks "paid in excess through oversight". However, while doing so, it totally escaped the notice of the enquiry officer that as many as in 11 bills there were excess payment and on being caught, the petitioner refunded the same through treasury challans with the said remark because he could not have stated in the treasury challans that the amounts were misappropriated by him by above modus operandi. 28. Another important aspect of the matter is that the enquiry officer while holding that the petitioner did not misappropriate the amounts surprisingly observed that "in absence of any other papers/documents from Shri Boro, CSE admitting either the excess amount were drawn and misappropriated by him on the challan amounts were replaced by him once he had drawn and misappropriated as alleged in the charge-sheet, it could not be agreed without examining the Govt. Cashiers/bearers of the bills who had actually received the bill amounts that Shri Boro, CSE, had tendered the challan amounts as viewed by Presenting Officer in his brief basing only on the signature of Shri Boro, CSE in the challans and thereby he had misappropriated the amount once he had drawn by altering the figures/amounts only on the Govt. debit scrolls and cash payment registers after the bills were passed for the actual amounts and sent for payment by passing officers as alleged in the charge-sheet when the paying cashier, Shri Boro, CSE had paid the bill amounts as passed by the Passing Officers as evident from the Govt. debit scrolls and cash payment registers. However; no Govt. cashiers/bearer of the bills were produced and examined before enquiry as evident from the enquiry proceedings". 29. While observing as above, the enquiry officer did not even obliquely deal with the most important question as to why the signature of the petitioner did contain in the challans through which the misappropriated amounts were deposited. It is in that view of the matter coupled with the cryptic reply of the petitioner to the charge-sheet, the disciplinary authority expressed its reasons for disagreement by the above quoted order dated 16.03.2007 and asked the petitioner to submit his reply to the disagreement. As to what was contended by the petitioner in his reply, has been noted above. Besides, when the proposed order of dismissal from service was passed and the petitioner was given opportunity to have his say in the matter, he submitted another cryptic reply without dealing with the reasons for disagreement. Not only that, after the final order of penalty also when the petitioner preferred the appeal, it did not contain the grounds towards challenging the order of penalty. Likewise, in the review petition against the appellate order also, the petitioner did not urge any grounds. 30. During the course of hearing, attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was drawn to Clause-V of Annexure-F letter dated 16.03.2007 conveying the points of disagreement to the petitioner in which serial No. 1 of the charge sheet was indicated. In the note of disagreement referring to the said bill, it was pointed out that it was evident from the copy of the bill that the amount passed by the petitioner for payment of Rs. 20,000/- was inflated to Rs. In the note of disagreement referring to the said bill, it was pointed out that it was evident from the copy of the bill that the amount passed by the petitioner for payment of Rs. 20,000/- was inflated to Rs. 1,20,000.00 by altering the figure in the. Govt. debit scroll as well as in the payment register. In the said note of disagreement the confessional statement of the petitioner dated 13.06.2005 was also mentioned. Thus, although it was submitted that the said confessional statement did not form part of the enquiry proceeding, but in fact, the same was referred to. 31. In the normal circumstances it was expected of a delinquent to deal with the same by cogent grounds, but the petitioner simply denied the said note of disagreement. The learned counsel for the petitioner being confronted with the above could not furnish any satisfactory reply except strenuously arguing that once the petitioner was exonerated by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority could not have disagreed with the said findings of the enquiry officer so as to assign notes of disagreement. 32. Law is well settled in this regard. The disciplinary authority engages the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges. On the basis of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority may agree or disagree with the same. In case of disagreement the points relating to disagreement are required to be furnished to the delinquent giving him opportunity to have his say in respect of the same. In this connection, the decisions reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Behari Mishra; (2000) 1 SCC 416 , High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil & Anr.; (1999) 7 SCC 739 , Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharastra & Anr.; AIR 2001 SC 2398 , State Bank of India & Ors. v. Arvind Kr. Sukla, may be referred to. 33. In Shashikant S. Patil (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the legal position relating to the role of the disciplinary authority in the matter of disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer, observed thus : 19. v. Arvind Kr. Sukla, may be referred to. 33. In Shashikant S. Patil (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the legal position relating to the role of the disciplinary authority in the matter of disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer, observed thus : 19. Reasoning of the High Court that when the Disciplinary Committee differed from the finding of the enquiry officer it is imperative to discuss the materials in detail and contest the conclusion of the enquiry officer, is quite unsound and contrary to the established principle in administrative law. The Disciplinary Committee was neither an appellate nor a revisional body over the enquiry officer's report. It must be borne in mind that the enquiry is primarily intended to afford the delinquent officer a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made against him and also to afford the punishing authority with the materials collected in such enquiry as well as the views are expressed by the enquiry officer thereon. The findings of the enquiry officer are only his opinion on the materials, but such findings are not binding on the disciplinary authority as the decision making authority is the punishing authority and, therefore, that authority can come to its own conclusion, of course bearing in mind the views expressed by the enquiry officer. But it is not necessary that the disciplinary authority should "discuss materials in detail and contest the conclusions of the enquiry officer". Otherwise the position of the disciplinary authority would get relegated to a subordinate level. 20. The legal position on that score has been stated by this Court in A.N. D'-Silva v. Union of India that neither the findings of the enquiry officer nor his recommendations are binding on the punishing authority. The aforesaid position was settled by a Constitution Bench of this Court way back in 1963, Union of India v. H.C Goel. The Bench held that "the Government may agree with the report or may differ, either wholly or partially, from the conclusions recorded in the report". The aforesaid position was settled by a Constitution Bench of this Court way back in 1963, Union of India v. H.C Goel. The Bench held that "the Government may agree with the report or may differ, either wholly or partially, from the conclusions recorded in the report". Their Lordships laid down the following principle : If the report makes findings in favour of the public servant and the Government disagrees with the said findings and holds that the charges framed against the public servant are prima facie proved, the Government should decide provisionally what punishment should be imposed on the public servant and proceed to issue a second notice against him in that behalf. 34. In the case reported in (1996) 2 SCC 12 , Additional District Magistrate v. Prabhakar Chaturvedi & Anr., the Apex Court emphasizing on the probative value involved in a departmental enquiry held that the delinquent involved in the said case having voluntarily admitted the fact of non-deposit of the amount of Rs. 21,000/-, the charge against him already stood proved. In the case reported in AIR 2005 SC 2090 , Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, the Apex Court dealing with the proportionality of punishment imposed on a delinquent bank employee, held that the action of the delinquent being prejudicial to the bank's interest, dismissal from service was proper. 35. When there is no dispute that the disciplinary authority is vested with the power and jurisdiction to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer on the basis of the available materials and when the requirement is a preponderance of probability towards establishing the charge in a departmental enquiry, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders cannot be said to be arbitrary and/or illegal. The charge against the petitioner stood established on the face of it. Any amount of leniency and that too, when the service involved is in a financial institution like a nationalized bank coupled with the kind of defence projected by the petitioner, would be antithesis to the requirement of stern action against financial irregularities committed with a calculated design and methodology. 36. For all the aforesaid reasons I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. The disciplinary authority while coming to the conclusion had given ample opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and what was the response from him has been noted above. 36. For all the aforesaid reasons I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. The disciplinary authority while coming to the conclusion had given ample opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and what was the response from him has been noted above. The writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.