Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 583 (GAU)

BANTI SONOWAL SAIKIA v. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

2016-06-23

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, C.J. Heard on admission. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed the appellant’s WP(C) 1196/2004. The appellant was serving the respondent Bank on the post of Cash-cum-General Clerk (CCG). While serving as such she committed serious financial irregularities. She was therefore served with a charge-sheet dated 13.4.2002. The charge leveled against the appellant reads as under: “You were posted to out Titabor Branch of the Bank during the period from 13/01/1997 to 03/12/2001 as cash-cum-General Clerk. During your such above tenure you were discharging your duties as Receiving Cashier on 07/08/2000 in terms of Office Order No. 40(A) dated 07/08/2000 of Titabor Branch. On that date you received cash for Rs. 20,000/- under Pay-in-slip for credit to S.B. A/c No. 1920 of Smt. Uma Kanti Bordoloi, besides other cash receipts. Although you issued the counter foil of said Pay-in-slip duly signed by you for Rs. 20,000/-, but instead of accounting for the said cash receipt in Bank's Books of Accounts you fraudulently pocketed the entire sum of Rs. 20,000/- for your personal gain and purpose. With a view to conceal your such misappropriation of cash, you destroyed the related ledger sheet bearing No. 316680 of S.B. A/C No. 1920 where such cash deposit ought to have been reflected. Further you with ulterior motive unauthorisedly prepared one ledger sheet bearing No. 801647, under your own handwriting of S.B. A/c No. 1920 with an imaginary figure of Rs. 1,17,296.00p as credit balance in the said S.B. Account instead of actual balance being Rs. 1,71,535-10p without indicating any date. In the said self made ledger sheet you failed to entry two genuine credit entries on 10/08/1999 and 30/12/1999 involving an aggregate amount of Rs. 12,570-00p. Due to your such stated destruction of original ledger sheet in S.B. A/c No. 1920 for the period from 10/08/1998 to 30/12/1999 and subsequent manipulation, the said S.B. A/c stood with a credit balance of Rs. 2,05,596-00p as on 29/12/2000, in the ALP Machine which is lesser by Rs. 66,809-10p than the correct balance of Rs. 2,72,405-10p as per reconstructed ledger sheet from Bank's record as on that date. Thus, you exposed the Bank to suffer a financial loss to that extent being Bank's liability to the depositor for that amount. 2,05,596-00p as on 29/12/2000, in the ALP Machine which is lesser by Rs. 66,809-10p than the correct balance of Rs. 2,72,405-10p as per reconstructed ledger sheet from Bank's record as on that date. Thus, you exposed the Bank to suffer a financial loss to that extent being Bank's liability to the depositor for that amount. During reconciliation of S.B. Ledger balance in November, 2001 at Titabor Branch, it revealed that you made fictitious credit entries on 09th and 10th December, 2000 for Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 9,000/- respectively in S.B. A/c No. 17642 of Mrs. Sabita Borah without preparing any vouchers. With a view to suppress your such misdeeds you made overwriting/disfigurement on dates of entries. Incidentally, 10th December, 2000 was a holiday being Sunday. In terms of allocation of duties under Office Order No. 65/2000 dated 09/10/2000 you were allocated duties in S.B. Ledger No. 1 to 31 but the S.B. account No. 17642 of Mrs. Sabita Borah was pertaining to ledger No. 51. Hence you made unauthorized access into the ledger sheet No. 801705 of S.B. A/c No. 17642 with a view to make those two fabricated initials of both the ledger keeper and passing officer, for your personal gain and purpose. It is further observed that Smti Sabita Borah was your tenant and you are the introducer of her S.B. A/c No. 17642. Subsequently, conniving with you, the account holder withdrew the whole amount causing financial loss to the Bank to that extent. On 16/06/2001, again you made a false credit entry for Rs. 1,00,000/- in S.B. A/c No. 1274 of Md. Anowar Hussain, impersonated the initial of both ledger keeper and the passing officer. With a view to suppress your misdeeds with malafide intention for your personal gain and purpose you disfigured the date of entry by overwriting. In terms of allocation of duties under Office Order No. 36/01 dated 21/04/2001 you were allotted to work in S.B. ledger No. 36 to 52 but with a view to make the said fake entry you unauthroisedly made access into the ledger sheet of S.B. A/c No. 1274 which pertains to S.B. Ledger No. 2. The account holder subsequently withdrew Rs. 1,00,000/- through different withdrawal slips in connivance with you, causing financial loss to the Bank to that extent. On 28/04/1998, there was a deposit of Rs. 500/- in S.B. A/c No. 10913 of Smt. Rupali Dutta. The account holder subsequently withdrew Rs. 1,00,000/- through different withdrawal slips in connivance with you, causing financial loss to the Bank to that extent. On 28/04/1998, there was a deposit of Rs. 500/- in S.B. A/c No. 10913 of Smt. Rupali Dutta. You fraudulently with malafide intention inserted the figure 10' before Rs. 500/- in the credit side thereby inflaming the deposit as Rs. 10,500/-. You further inflated the ultimate credit balance in the said S.B. A/c No. 10913 from Rs. 1,025.25p to Rs. 11,025.25p by inserting the figure 1' before the correct balance of Rs. 1,025.25p. Thus, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was inflated by you in the said account No. 10913 and the said amount was withdrawn by the Account holder on 13/08/1999 through withdrawal slip in connivance with you. The related ledger sheet is missing from the Branch but the pass book of the said S.B. A/c was recovered from your custody, which revealed the said misdeed committed by you. After reconstruction of the ledger sheet from the Books of Accounts and records of the branch, it transpires that on 13/08/1999, when the amount was withdrawn for Rs. 10,000/- the actual credit balance in the said S.B. A/c ought to have been Rs. 1,143.25 which did not permit such withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, you have exposed the Bank to suffer financial loss to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. The acts as states above alleged to have been committed by you constitute gross misconduct in terms of para 19.5 (j) of Bipartite Settlement dated 19/10.1966 which read as “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. The appellant submitted her reply to the charge but it was not found to be satisfactory. In the result, departmental enquiry was held. And in the departmental enquiry, all the charges have been found to be proved against the appellant. The disciplinary authority therefore after serving a copy of the enquiry report imposed penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal but it too was dismissed. Undeterred the appellant filed WP(C) 1196/2004 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. And in the departmental enquiry, all the charges have been found to be proved against the appellant. The disciplinary authority therefore after serving a copy of the enquiry report imposed penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal but it too was dismissed. Undeterred the appellant filed WP(C) 1196/2004 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, we are convinced that departmental enquiry held against the appellant was strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed and that she has been given full opportunity to defend her case. We also find from the enclosed copy of the written statement of the appellant that in defence she did not point out anything in respect to the allegation made against her but tried to attribute the misconduct to others so as to contend that she alone ought not to have been picked up for the charges. The appellant being a bank employee was expected to discharge the duties with absolute honesty which she did not do. The bank, therefore, after the charge was found proved against the appellant did not commit any illegality in dismissing her from service. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is well founded and unassailable. The learned Single Judge has dealt with all the issues raised by the appellant by giving cogent reasons. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.