Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 732 (UTT)

SHAMBHU PRASAD JUYAL v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

2013-11-20

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Petitioner was removed from the services vide order dated 31st May, 2012, passed by the Regional Manager (R-1), Disciplinary Authority, respondent No.3. Statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2012. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cashier in the State Bank of India on 07.02.1985; ultimately, petitioner was promoted to the post of Special Assistant in the year 2008; petitioner alongwith his wife Smt. Rajni Juyal purchased plot No. 510 in T.H.D.C. Colony, Rishikesh in the year 2006; thereafter petitioner took housing loan of Rs.10 lacs from Canara Bank alongwith his wife and constructed residential house over the plot purchased by him; petitioner and his wife entered into an agreement to sell with Ranjit Singh Rawat for the sale consideration of Rs.18 lacs somewhere in March, 2008 and then agreement to sell was executed on 11.08.2008; Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat, the prospective purchaser of the petitioner’s house, applied for housing loan; S.B.I. sanctioned housing loan in favour of Ranjit Singh Rawat to purchase house from the petitioner; since property in question was mortgaged with the Canara Bank, therefore, housing loan outstanding against the petitioner was paid to the Canara Bank by Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat through S.B.I. As per the petitioner, since Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat could not arrange entire money within the time stipulated in the agreement to sell, therefore, Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat requested to the petitioner to cancel the agreement to sell and ultimately agreement to sell was mutually cancelled. 3. A show cause notice, annexure No.7 to the writ petition, was issued to the petitioner calling the explanation of the petitioner on two charges. Charges levelled against the petitioner are being reproduced hereunder:- “1. You have availed following Housing Loan jointly with your wife Mrs. Rajni Juyal from Canara Bank, Clement Town, Dehradun Branch without getting any administrative clearance from the Bank. Housing Loan A/c No. 2444619000065 Amount Sanctioned Rs.10,00,000.00 Sanctioned on 21.12.2006. 2. You and your wife Mrs. Rajni Juyal have jointly entered into a contract of sale of house situated at Banjarawala Khasra No. 226, THDC Plot No. 510 on 11.08.2008 with Mr. Ranjit Singh Rawat, OMMGS-III (presently posted as Director R-SETI, at Rudraprayag). Housing Loan A/c No. 2444619000065 Amount Sanctioned Rs.10,00,000.00 Sanctioned on 21.12.2006. 2. You and your wife Mrs. Rajni Juyal have jointly entered into a contract of sale of house situated at Banjarawala Khasra No. 226, THDC Plot No. 510 on 11.08.2008 with Mr. Ranjit Singh Rawat, OMMGS-III (presently posted as Director R-SETI, at Rudraprayag). The house property was already financed by Canara Bank (detailed above). On the basis of your agreement to sell, the Bank has sanctioned Housing Loan for Rs.17,82,000.00 to Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat, OMMGS-III on 27.11.2008 and paid Rs.10,27,255.00 to Canara Bank vide Draft No. 637710 for Rs.5,27,255.00 and Draft No. 637711 for Rs.5,00,000.00 in liquidation of your entire Housing Loan outstanding. In this dealing the following lapses on your part:- i) You failed to honor your joint agreement of sale dated 11.08.2008 for the said property though your entire Housing Loan outstanding with Canara Bank were liquidated by the Bank on 29.11.2008. ii) You have subsequently cancelled the deal with Shri Rawat on 12.01.2009 with the commitment that outstanding in the Housing loan account of Shri Rawat, will be liquidated by you, which you failed to do so. iii) By your above act, the Bank is likely to suffer a loss of Rs.12.27 lacs (i.e. the amount disbursed) plus interest till date.” 4. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice issued. Ultimately, petitioner was held guilty for both the charges levelled against him and he was removed from the Bank services vide order impugned in the writ petition. 5. I have heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the respondents bank and have carefully perused the record. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no Rule or Regulation which mandates prior approval of the Bank for taking housing loan from the another Bank. Further contends that breach of contract (agreement to sell) between the two private individuals would not amount to misconduct justifying invocation of para 5 (j) of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen Staff. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Further contends that breach of contract (agreement to sell) between the two private individuals would not amount to misconduct justifying invocation of para 5 (j) of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen Staff. 7. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondents Bank while referring to para 4 of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen Staff contends that as per para 4 of the Memorandum, an employee of the Bank shall not borrow money or permit any member of his family to borrow money without prior approval of the Bank. Further contends that as per para 5 (j) , doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss would amount to gross misconduct justifying removal. Further contends that since firstly petitioner took loan from Canara Bank without seeking prior approval of the employer bank and secondly respondent bank has extended loan in favour of Mr. Ranjit Singh Rawat, the prospective purchaser and petitioner did not execute the sale deed in favour of Shri Rawat, therefore, recovery of amount of loan given to Mr. Ranjit Singh Rawat became doubtful. Therefore, Bank was likely to suffer financial loss for the amount given to Mr. Ranjit Singh Rawat as housing loan. 8. Undisputedly, petitioner and Ranjit Singh Rawat parties to the agreement to sell both were serving with the State Bank of India. Facts as narrated hereinbefore are undisputed, therefore, in view of the undisputed facts, I have to examine as to whether taking loan from Canara Bank and breach of contract (agreement to sell), if any, would amount to gross misconduct justifying the removal from the bank services ? Rule 4 (i) reads as under :- “No employee of the bank shall borrow money or permit any member of his family to borrow money or otherwise place himself or a member of his family under a pecuniary obligation to a broker or a money lender or a subordinate employee of the bank or any person, association of persons, firm, company or institution, whether incorporated not having dealings with the bank.” 9. Having perused para 4 (i), I have no hesitation to hold that an employee of the Bank should not borrow the money or permit any member of his family to borrow the money or otherwise place himself or any member of his family under a pecuniary obligation to any individual, firm or company not having dealing with the Bank. 10. In other words, Bank employee should not borrow money from the private lenders. However, there seems to be no bar to borrow money from the Bank established under the relevant Law. Bank has not produced any Rule or Regulation either on the record or at the time of hearing today to show that prior approval of the Bank was required before borrowing money from other Bank. Therefore, I hold that petitioner was not required to seek and obtain prior approval from the Bank before taking housing loan from the Canara Bank. 11. The case of the petitioner is that since Mr. Ranjit Singh Rawat could not arrange balance amount over and above the housing loan so taken by him from the S.B.I., therefore, sale deed could not be executed in favour of Mr. Ranjit Singh Rawat. I have carefully perused the counter affidavit filed by the Bank. There is no specific denial to this pleading. Be as the case may be. Undisputedly, agreement to sell executed between the petitioner and his wife on one part and Mr. Rawat on the other part could not be honoured. Undisputedly, Bank has started recovery of the amount borrowed by Mr. Rawat from the salary of Mr. Rawat. Rule 5 (j) reads as under :- “doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss;” 12. Having read Rule 5 (j), I have no hesitation to hold that para 5 (j) of the Memorandum can be pressed in service if an employee is found guilty for any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss. 13. This Court is of the considered view that entering into agreement to sell for his own property with Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat and cancelling the same or in other words not honouring the same shall not amount to any act prejudicial to Bank’s interest. 13. This Court is of the considered view that entering into agreement to sell for his own property with Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat and cancelling the same or in other words not honouring the same shall not amount to any act prejudicial to Bank’s interest. More particularly bank was not party to the agreement to sell. Moreover, admittedly, respondent Bank has initiated recovery proceedings against the borrower Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat, therefore, there is no question of any pecuniary loss to the Bank. 14. This Court is conscious about the fact that in writ jurisdiction arising out of the disciplinary proceedings, findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority should not be lightly interfered with and penalty imposed should not also be interfered with unless same is found to be shocking. However, there is a caveat to it. If on the face of it, findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are totally perverse or in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty is warranted, certainly Writ Court should come forward to do complete justice. 15. In view of the findings recorded hereinbefore that no prior approval was required for taking housing loan from the Canara Bank and in view of the findings that breach of contract (agreement to sell) does not amount to act prejudicial to the interest of the respondent Bank and breach of contract did not cause any pecuniary loss to the Bank and is not likely to cause any pecuniary loss to the Bank, petitioner cannot be held guilty for any misconduct. It seems that Bank has unnecessary intervened in a private disputes of two Bank employees. Mr. Rawat could have filed suit for specific performance, if he was aggrieved for not honouring the agreement to sell arrived at between two parties. In my considered view, disciplinary proceeding was totally uncalled for. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, unwarranted suspension or termination has grave consequences like loss of reputation and prestige of the employee. Since petitioner was removed from the services for no fault, in other words, for private civil dispute with other employee of the Bank, petitioner can be said to have suffered loss of his reputation and prestige. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, unwarranted suspension or termination has grave consequences like loss of reputation and prestige of the employee. Since petitioner was removed from the services for no fault, in other words, for private civil dispute with other employee of the Bank, petitioner can be said to have suffered loss of his reputation and prestige. Now time has come that Writ Court must come forward to compensate the employee for loss of reputation by placing him under suspension or by removing him from the services without there being any serious charge against the employees. 17. Consequently, I direct that respondent bank shall reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits and backwages and shall also pay Rs. 5 lacs as compensation within 30 days from today. It shall be open to the Bank to recover the amount of compensation so paid to the petitioner from the salary of the concerned officers who have initiated disciplinary proceedings for the private dispute between two employees of the Bank and who have passed the order of removal of the petitioner, without proper application of mind. 18. Impugned orders are hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly.