Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 884 (KAR)

J. I. Havaldar v. State Bank Of India

2015-08-07

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2015
ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. - The learned Counsel for the petitioner remains absent. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is said to have joined the services of the State Bank of India in the year 1977 at a Clerk-cum-Cashier and he was said to have been promoted as an officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-1 in the year 1986 and was further promoted as an Officer in Middle Management Grade Scale-II in the year 2001. It is claimed that he had blemish less record of service for over 30 years. He was said to have been posted and working as the Deputy Manager (Cash) cum System Administrator at Hirekerur Branch of the bank from October 2005. He was a joint key holder. On noticing that there was shortage of cash in the strong room to the tune of Rs.65,00,000/-, he had reported the matter to the manager of Hirekerur Branch on 6-12-2005. On account of which, proceedings had been initiated against him alleging that on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner, the co-joint custodian and the Deputy Manager, a loss of Rs. 65,00,000/- has caused to the Bank. It was alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated the amount. On a complaint having been lodged, the Police had searched the residence of the petitioner as well as his relatives, where, it was suspected that the petitioner may have misappropriated the money. It was after much investigation that the proceedings were dropped insofar as the allegation of misappropriation is concerned. 3. It transpires that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated by issuance of a charge sheet dated 19-9-2006. The petitioner had merely replied to the said statement of allegations denying the charges levelled against him without prejudice to his right to legal and other remedies to protect his interest. Thereafter an inquiry having been conducted, the petitioner had not chosen to provide any explanation, but had merely denied the allegations and had sought to test the evidence of the witnesses for the management. The inquiry officer having found that the charges stood established and the same having been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner had been dismissed from service. An appeal having been preferred was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It is that which is sought to be questioned in the present petition on various grounds. 4. The inquiry officer having found that the charges stood established and the same having been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner had been dismissed from service. An appeal having been preferred was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It is that which is sought to be questioned in the present petition on various grounds. 4. The petitioner never having replied to the statement of allegations and not having raised any defence, the present ground urged in the writ petition can hardly be sustained. 5. In any event, the learned Counsel for the respondent in support of the statement of objections filed would point out that the findings of fact have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority and can hardly be tested in these proceedings on the contentions raised as to the failure of the principles of natural justice and other allegations. 6. It is pointed out that it is indeed true that he was working as a Depot Manager (Cash) at the bank during the period October 2005 to December 2005 and it is on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioner and the co-joint custodian, that a loss of Rs.65.00 lakhs was found and it is in that regard that the petitioner's conduct in having followed proper procedure in safeguarding the monies was examined at length and it has been found that he had committed continuous lapses in this regard, which amounted to criminal breach of trust. Having regard to huge loss suffered by the Bank, merely because the petitioner had reported the loss, he is not absolved of his responsibility to account for the monies and therefore, both civil and criminal proceedings having been initiated was in order and the charges made against the petitioner have been established in an inquiry and both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have confirmed the findings on an independent application of mind and hence there is no warrant to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner. There are no contradictions and other infirmities as sought to be canvassed insofar as the findings of the Inquiry Officer is concerned. The petitioner was given ample opportunity through his defence representative as seen from the proceedings and therefore, there is no merit in the petition. 7. There are no contradictions and other infirmities as sought to be canvassed insofar as the findings of the Inquiry Officer is concerned. The petitioner was given ample opportunity through his defence representative as seen from the proceedings and therefore, there is no merit in the petition. 7. Insofar as the contention that a copy of the Investigation Officer's report was to be furnished and it has not been done is concerned, it is pointed out that unless the relevancy of the statement of the witnesses recorded earlier is given by the officer concerned, prior copies of the witnesses' statements could not have been given under Rules 68(2) and 9(b) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', for brevity). It is further contended that it is also not necessary for the management to withhold the inquiry pending disposal of the criminal case and further that there is no valuable right of the petitioner that has been taken away by not making available to the petitioner the copies of statements of witnesses. The Branch Manager, who had filed a complaint with the police, has been examined as PW.3 and he had no vested right in appearing as a witness. The ground raised in this regard was therefore baseless. 8. The petitioner having submitted his written submission through his representative, the Inquiry Officer has rendered his findings taking the same into account and hence there is no violation of Rule 68(2)(xv) of the Rules, as sought to be contended. 9. The further allegation that there has been no compliance with Rule 68(2)(xvii) of the Rules, whereby it is alleged that the Inquiry Officer was bound to generally question the officer on the circumstance appearing against him in the evidence, for the purpose of enabling the officer to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. The petitioner did not choose to examine himself as a witness on his behalf and there is no mandatory duty cast on the Inquiry Officer in terms of the rule, which only provides that the Inquiry Officer may question an officer on the circumstances appearing against him. It is in this manner that the petition is sought to be resisted. 10. It is in this manner that the petition is sought to be resisted. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and having perused the material available on record, since the charges have been duly established as per the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the same having been affirmed independently by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, on an apparent application of mind, as disclosed by the reasons assigned, there is no merit in this petition and the petition stands dismissed.