Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1795 (RAJ)

Sumnesh Vyas v. UCO Bank

2013-10-04

GOVIND MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition for writ is directed against the order dated 20.2.2004 passed by the General manager (Operation-I), UCO Bank, Kolkata, rejecting an appeal preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the order dated 20.3.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Jodhpur in respect of charge sheet dated 1.8.2000. By the order dated 20.3.2001 the disciplinary authority while holding the petitioner guilty for charge No.1 imposed a penalty of censure. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as clerk at Jodhpur Main Branch of UCO Bank committed certain acts of omission and commission for which a charge sheet dated 1.8.2000 was issued to him. The allegations against him include inter-alia the following:- "1. On 6.4.98, he had introduced the account no.19949/62 of Mr. Sumer Singh of Village Dharamdhani, Distt. Pali, without carefully verifying the whereabouts of the account holder personally. 2. On 27.8.98, while working in the cash department he prepared a fake clearing voucher for credit entry in Savings Bank account no. 18784 of Mrs. Sumitra Jain for Rs. 2.00 lacs. To make corresponding debit against the fake credit entry he had altered the date from 24.8.98 to 27.8.98 on account of draft bearing no. 47/093120 dated 17.8.98 issued by our Aalamganj branch for Rs. 2.00 lacs, which was earlier paid on 24.8.98 to Andhra Bank through clearing. 3. On 17.9.98, a fake voucher had been prepared to create entry for Rs. 2.00 lacs in the account of Mr. Sumer Singh. To make corresponding debit a voucher was prepared for debiting the SB a/c University of Jodhpur (Sundries A/C.). This SB ledger was overwritten and shown debit entry of Rs. 676245/- instead of correct amount i.e. Rs. 476245/- on the date on folio no.58 and same effect was also done in the SB supplementary Book dated 17.9.98. 4. On 17.9.98, he had also given introduction to account holder Smt. Sarda Devi and Hazara Singh Rajpurohit without carefully verifying the whereabouts of the a/c holder personally and managed to open their SB a/c 20091/63 in the branch to get their confidence for his ulterior motive. 5. On 14.9.98, Shri Hazara Singh had given him withdrawal form alongwith pass book with a request to make the payment in cash amounting to Rs. 10000/-, but he filled the withdrawal as Rs. 18000/- instead of Rs. 5. On 14.9.98, Shri Hazara Singh had given him withdrawal form alongwith pass book with a request to make the payment in cash amounting to Rs. 10000/-, but he filled the withdrawal as Rs. 18000/- instead of Rs. 10000/- and made the payment of Rs. 10,000/- and balance amount he kept with him. Shri Hazara Singh approached him for passbook but he managed to issue a duplicate passbook. While observing the passbook, Shri Hazara Singh found that he has never drawn the amount of Rs. 18000/-. On asking from him, Shri Sumnesh Vyas paid the amount on different dates. 6. By introducing a/c no.19949/62 and 20091/63 in the name of Shri Sumer Singh and joint account of Mrs. Sarda Devi and Shri Hazara Singh Rajpurohit respectively, he had gained confidence from the above a/c holders and opted the route for the fraudulent transactions of Rs. 2.00 lacs through SB a/c no.19949/62 of Shri Sumer Singh and destroyed all the relative vouchers/records from the bank." 3. On basis of the above allegations the petitioner was charged for doing the act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. 4. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner delinquent employee but that being not found satisfactory, the disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 29.12.2000 holding the petitioner guilty for charge No.1 that he violated the Rules and Regulations for giving introduction for the purpose of opening saving bank account and he failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and in the interest of the bank which resulted into attempting a fraud at Jodhpur main branch. A penalty of censure was awarded accordingly. While imposing the penalty of censure the disciplinary authority also declared that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any salary and allowances or any other benefits for the period of suspension whatsoever, except the subsistence allowance already paid to him. The suspension of the petitioner also came to be revoked under the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Suffice to mention here that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.5.2000 passed by the Regional Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority. 5. An appeal giving challenge to the order passed by the disciplinary authority also came to be rejected vide the order dated 20.2.2004. 6. Suffice to mention here that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.5.2000 passed by the Regional Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority. 5. An appeal giving challenge to the order passed by the disciplinary authority also came to be rejected vide the order dated 20.2.2004. 6. While challenging the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the disciplinary authority the argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents held the petitioner guilty while relying upon his statement said to be given during the course of preliminary inquiry, but the document concerned is neither part of inquiry record nor has been duly verified by the officer, who said to have recorded the statement during the preliminary inquiry. It is asserted that the document aforesaid could have not been taken into consideration in regular inquiry without being properly verified by its author. 7. The argument advanced appears to be quite attractive but in the instant case i.e. not available to the petitioner. The petitioner in his defence statement given in response to the disciplinary authority's letter dated 22.1.2001 accepted that he introduced Shri Sumer Singh on basis of a recommendation made by Shri Hari Singh, an old account holder of the bank. While introducing Shri Sumer Singh it was the responsibility of the petitioner to satisfy that the person concerned was a genuine one and his integrity and respectability is beyond shadow of doubt. The petitioner without verifying all these facts introduced Shri Sumer Singh. It is also pertinent to note that during the course of personal hearing before the disciplinary authority the petitioner accepted that Shri Hari Singh was potential depositor of the branch and was known to him, therefore, he introduced Shri Sumer Singh. This fact also clearly indicates that the petitioner introduced Shri Sumer Singh without due diligence, as such, negligence on his part is apparent. 8. The next argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority erred while declaring the petitioner disentitled for any salary and allowances and any other benefits for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid. 8. The next argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority erred while declaring the petitioner disentitled for any salary and allowances and any other benefits for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid. It is pointed out that as per clause (b) of para 12 of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action procedure for Workmen signed between Indian Banks' Association and Workmen Unions on 10.04.2002, a workman may be suspended pending inquiry but on the conclusion of the inquiry, if some punishment other than dismissal is inflicted the whole or a part of the period of suspension, may, at the discretion of the management, be treated as on duty with the right to a corresponding portion of the wages, allowances, etc., but in the instant matter the discretion has been exercised by the disciplinary authority without considering the facts objectively. 9. While meeting with this argument it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the disciplinary authority exercised its discretion objectively and by keeping in mind the nature of the misconduct for which the petitioner was found guilty.Clause (b) of para 12 of the settlement concerned reads as under:- "Pending such inquiry or initiation of such inquiry he may be suspended, but if on the conclusion of the enquiry it is decided to take no action against him he shall be deemed to have been on duty and shall be entitled to the full wages and allowances and to all other privileges for the period of suspension; and if some punishment other than dismissal is inflicted the whole or a part of the period of suspension, may, at the discretion of the management, be treated as on duty with the right to a corresponding portion of the wages, allowances, etc." 10. The clause aforesaid provides a broad discretion to the management to treat a workman on duty during the period of suspension, if he has been subjected to a punishment other than the dismissal. 11. It is well settled that such discretion is always required to be exercised objectively. The objectivity of a decision can be verified by the reasons recorded while arriving at a decision. In the instant matter no such reasons have been recorded by the disciplinary authority. 11. It is well settled that such discretion is always required to be exercised objectively. The objectivity of a decision can be verified by the reasons recorded while arriving at a decision. In the instant matter no such reasons have been recorded by the disciplinary authority. Suffice to mention that recording of reasons is not necessary in the order imposing penalty, but in the record of the respondents themselves. The respondents failed to produce any such record wherein the reasons would have been recorded. Non recording of the reasons for denying full wages, allowances and other benefits to the petitioner for the period of suspension indicates non application of mind. As such, the same is bad. No decision ipse-dixit could have been taken by the respondents to deny complete wages, allowances etc. to the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the petition for writ is allowed in part. The respondents shall treat the petitioner's period of suspension commencing from 25.5.2000 to 20.3.2001 as a period spent by him on duty and he shall be entitled for complete wages, allowances and other applicable benefits. No order to costs.Petition partly allowed. *******