Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2533 (ALL)

Prem Sagar Dwivedi v. State Bank of India

2018-12-13

B.AMIT STHALEKAR, JAYANT BANERJI

body2018
JUDGMENT : JAYANT BANERJI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of penalty dated 27th February 2015 passed by the General Manager (NW-II), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow imposing on the petitioner the penalty of removal from service as well as the appellate order dated 23rd July 2015 passed by the Chief General Manager (Appeal and Review Cell), State Bank of India, Lucknow and the order in the review petition dated 31st December 2015 passed by the Review Committee of the State Bank of India and Appeal and Review Department, Mumbai, whereby the appeal and the review were rejected and the order of penalty imposed on the petitioner was affirmed. 2. The petitioner, who is an Officer in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I of the State Bank of India (JMGS-1), was issued a charge-sheet dated 21st January 2014 containing a statement of articles of charges in respect of certain acts of commission/omission allegedly committed by him while posted as Senior Assistant at Badhya Branch from the period from 1 April 2004 to 2nd December 2012 which acts, prima facie, constituted misconduct in terms of Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules SBIOSR, if proved. The charges against the petitioner were as follows: “CHARGE NO.1 3. Account Nos.11707798255 and 11707842693 in your name maintained at Badhya Branch reflect several credits which are disproportionate to your known sources of income as source of funds has not been explained by you. CHARGE NO.2. 4. Credit entries aggregating a sum of Rs.15,61,500.00, as given in the tables relating to Charge No.1 are suspicious in nature. Relative credits in your aforementioned accounts amount to laundering of ill-gotten/un-accounted money amassed either by you or by some one else routed through your accounts with your connivance. 5. All the aforesaid acts/omissions jointly and severally reveal prima facie that you failed to discharge your duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of an Officer in violation of Banking Practice and Procedures specially those contained in the various publications/guidelines of the Bank, constituting misconduct in terms of Rule 50(4) of State Bank of India Officer’s Service Rules. Your acts were highly detrimental to the Bank’s interest and are punishable under Rule 67 ibid, if proved. Statements of allegations in support of the Articles as above are enclosed as Annexure-II.” 6. Your acts were highly detrimental to the Bank’s interest and are punishable under Rule 67 ibid, if proved. Statements of allegations in support of the Articles as above are enclosed as Annexure-II.” 6. The letter alongwith which the charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner contains details of the statement of allegations in respect of Articles of Charges, the documents in support of the charges. The petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence in terms of Rule 68(2)(iii) of the SBIOSR. Thereafter, a preliminary hearing of the inquiry was held on 25 February 2014. This was followed by a regular hearing on 14 March 2014, whereafter, the Inquiring Authority concluded the inquiry proceedings. The findings of the Inquiring Authority dated 9 April 2014 were sent to the petitioner alongwith a letter dated 10 May 2014 asking him to furnish his representation/submissions in case he was so interested. The Inquiring Authority found Charge Nos. 1 and 2 as partly proved. The petitioner then submitted his representation dated 25 June 2014 to the Disciplinary Authority who agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and by means of an order dated 27 February 2015 imposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 6 April 2015 before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed by means of an order dated 23 July 2015. The petition for review filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by means of a decision taken by the respondent no.2 on 31 December 2015. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that he has a joint family and his ancestral village is Babanpurwa, Siddharth Nagar where his father, brother and other family members including uncle are also living. He owns ancestral property jointly with his brother at Siddharth Nagar and received about 14 bighas of land from his maternal uncle and also maintained a tractor for agricultural purposes. The petitioner’s wife had also inherited about 2.360 hectares of agricultural land in her village at Sishwa Tappa, Devaich Paar, Pargana Bansi, Tehsil Itwa, Siddharth Nagar from which her annual income is about Rs.1,08,000/-. The petitioner’s wife had also inherited about 2.360 hectares of agricultural land in her village at Sishwa Tappa, Devaich Paar, Pargana Bansi, Tehsil Itwa, Siddharth Nagar from which her annual income is about Rs.1,08,000/-. The petitioner and other family members were intending to sell a joint property but due to its location, they were not getting good price and, therefore, they were contacted by one Mahboob Alam, who had shifted to Pune and who agreed to give the petitioner’s desired price of Rs.7 lacs but in installments which was agreed to by the petitioner and other family members and as such the aforesaid Mahboob Alam started depositing the installments of high and small value in the petitioner’s account. It is stated that the final payment was received by the petitioner on 19 April 2011 and thereafter a sale-deed was executed by the petitioner and his other family members in favour of Smt. Khitab-un-nisa, wife of Mahboob Alam on 18 June 2011. Even after executing the above sale-deed, the petitioner owns approximately 6 acres of agricultural land which is in his wife’s name. On receiving a show cause notice dated 11 May 2012 from the respondent-Bank, the petitioner submitted his explanation alongwith the letter dated 16 June 2012 giving complete explanation of all the deposits in his Account Nos.11707798255 and 11707842693. Further, he explained that he had also sold one tractor. His wife and his other family members also had Kisan Credit Card/Agricultural Term Loan Account and a few transfers were made from these accounts as well. It is stated that the action of the respondents in instituting and conducting the departmental inquiry without calling for any explanation from the petitioner demonstrates the bias of the respondents. No list of witnesses was enclosed with the charge-sheet on the basis of which the respondents intended to prove the documents. It is contended that no allegation against the petitioner with regard to misappropriation or embezzlement of any money was made nor was there any evidence regarding misconduct on part of the petitioner. It is stated that a credit voucher for Rs.1,20,000/- was wrongly listed in the inquiry and the petitioner’s request to de-list the said credit voucher was rejected despite the fact that the correct figure was Rs.12,000/- and as such the allegation of disproportionate assets against the petitioner was increased by Rs.1,08,000/-. It is stated that a credit voucher for Rs.1,20,000/- was wrongly listed in the inquiry and the petitioner’s request to de-list the said credit voucher was rejected despite the fact that the correct figure was Rs.12,000/- and as such the allegation of disproportionate assets against the petitioner was increased by Rs.1,08,000/-. No witnesses were called by the Inquiry Officer and the inquiry was concluded in just two days. The Inquiry Officer neither conducted any oral inquiry nor any of the documents produced by the bank were proved and yet the same were relied upon by the Inquiry Officer. It is also stated that the photocopy of the sale-deed dated 18 June 2011 was filed before the Inquiry Officer alongwith an affidavit of the husband of the vendee but the same was disbelieved by the Inquiry Officer on the ground that the sale-deed was executed in favour of Smt. Khitab-un-nisa, whereas the affidavit was given by her husband Mahboob Alam and further that there was no narration with regard to payment of the sale consideration of the property in installments in the sale-deed. It is contended that the Inquiry Officer had a biased attitude, committed several irregularities and had not considered the material and evidence submitted by the petitioner and as such the inquiry proceedings are vitiated and the order of penalty dated 27 February 2015 as well as the subsequent orders passed in the petitioner’s appeal and review application deserve to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 713 M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 88 and Allahabad Bank & Ors. Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 . 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, on the other hand, contended that the entire inquiry proceedings were conducted strictly as per the SBIOSR after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was assisted by a defence representative at the regular hearing in the inquiry proceedings held on 14 March 2014. The authenticity and genuineness of the documents was accepted and admitted by the petitioner during the inquiry and thus the admitted documents were not required to be proved by witnesses. The petitioner was assisted by a defence representative at the regular hearing in the inquiry proceedings held on 14 March 2014. The authenticity and genuineness of the documents was accepted and admitted by the petitioner during the inquiry and thus the admitted documents were not required to be proved by witnesses. The Defence Exhibits were duly listed in the inquiry proceedings and only after the petitioner and his defence representative affirmed that the defence presentation was over, the Inquiring Authority concluded the inquiry proceedings and directed the Presenting Officer of the Bank to submit his brief, whereafter the defence was required to submit his brief. The minutes of the inquiry were duly signed by the Inquiring Authority, the Presenting Officer of the Bank, the petitioner and his defence representative and a copy of the inquiry proceedings was handed over to the petitioner on the day of the inquiry. It is stated that both the charges were partly proved and the Disciplinary Authority has correctly imposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 712 and Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 240 and also a judgment of this Court in Mayank Agarwal Vs. Bareilly Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors., (2013) 1 UPLBEC 633 9. On 1 August 2003, the petitioner was granted cadre promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and was posted at Badhya Branch of the Bank in Siddharth Nagar and that he had joined as such on 6 January 2004. At the relevant period pertaining to which the charges have been levelled against the petitioner, he was posted at Badhya Branch of the Bank in Siddharth Nagar district and by an order dated 15 September 2011, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Manager in Scale-I and was posted at SBI Sandha Branch in District Sant Kabir Nagar. 10. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it has been stated that while posted in Class-III category, there was no requirement of any disclosure of assets nor the same were ever asked by the respondents and as such there was absolutely no occasion for the petitioner to declare his assets at any point of time. 10. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it has been stated that while posted in Class-III category, there was no requirement of any disclosure of assets nor the same were ever asked by the respondents and as such there was absolutely no occasion for the petitioner to declare his assets at any point of time. In the counter affidavit in paragraph 8 thereof, it is stated as follows: “8. That the contents of paragraph no.10 of the writ petition are denied. However, it is submitted that the said paragraph under reply is in argumentative nature and it shall be argued accordingly.” 11. There were no arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that prior to the promotion of the petitioner as Junior Manager in Scale-I, there was any requirement by the bank for declaration/disclosure of the petitioner’s assets. The charges against the petitioner are for the period from 1 April 2004 to 2 December 2012 while he was posted as Senior Assistant at Badhya Branch of the Bank. However, it is not disputed by the parties that in view of the promotion of the petitioner as Junior Manager in Scale-I, the provisions of SBIOSR were applicable on the petitioner for purpose of the inquiry into the acts of misconduct instituted against him. The charge-sheet enclosed alongwith the letter dated 21 January 2014 contained two charges. The first charge pertains to several credit entries in the two accounts maintained at the Badhya Branch of the Bank which are disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner and the second charge relates to suspicious nature of credit entries aggregating a sum of Rs.1561500.00 amounting to laundering of ill-gotten/un-accounted money amassed either by the petitioner or some one else routed through his accounts with the connivance of the petitioner. In the allegations on which charge no.1 was based, the details of the credit entries in both the accounts at Badhya Branch reflecting several credits allegedly disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner as sources of which were not explained by him, were specified. Alongwith the charge-sheet, the list of documents specifying the Account Statement of Current Account of the petitioner and the Account Statement of Savings Bank Account of the petitioner and other documents/papers related to the case was enclosed. Alongwith the charge-sheet, the list of documents specifying the Account Statement of Current Account of the petitioner and the Account Statement of Savings Bank Account of the petitioner and other documents/papers related to the case was enclosed. The preliminary inquiry was held on 25 February 2014 and the regular hearing was held on 14 March 2014. The minutes of each meeting have been collectively filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Both the preliminary inquiry as well as the regular hearing were held at the Badhya Branch of the Bank. During the course of regular hearing on 14 March 2014, one Shri Pawan Kumar was present as the defence representative of the petitioner. At the commencement of the regular hearing proceedings, on the queries of the Inquiring Authority, the petitioner and his defence representative admitted that the original and prosecution documents were perused by them and they had also admitted the authenticity and genuineness of the documents perused by them. Thereafter, the prosecution documents were listed as Prosecution Exhibits. The defence representative objected to the listing of one credit voucher dated 19 January 2001 for Rs.120000.00 since that did not relate to the charge-sheet which contention was opposed by the Presenting Officer of the Bank on the ground that the amount of the credit voucher in question was wrongly mentioned in the charge-sheet as Rs.120000.00 instead of Rs.12000.00 and the same should be taken on record. Then the Inquiring Authority gave its ruling to record that as an Exhibit. Thereafter, the defence documents were listed as Defence Exhibits. After the petitioner and his defence representative stated that their defence presentation was over, the Inquiring Authority concluded the inquiry proceedings. The report of the Inquiring Authority dated 9 April 2014 was sent to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority of the Bank alongwith the letter dated 10 May 2014. The Disciplinary Authority in the aforesaid letter observed that in case the petitioner wished to file any representation or submission to the findings of the Inquiring Authority, he may do so within a period of seven days. 12. A perusal of the inquiry report reveals that the Inquiring Authority has considered the minutes of the inquiry, all the listed prosecution and defence Exhibits and the written brief of the Presenting Officer as well as of the petitioner. 12. A perusal of the inquiry report reveals that the Inquiring Authority has considered the minutes of the inquiry, all the listed prosecution and defence Exhibits and the written brief of the Presenting Officer as well as of the petitioner. With regard to charge no.1, while examining the allegations on which the said charge was based, the Inquiring Authority examined the suspicious entries in the two accounts of the petitioner maintained at the Badhya Branch. Several suspicious entries of the petitioner’s account were found by the Inquiring Authority to have been substantiated by the prosecution but some were found to be unsubstantiated. The defence arguments in respect of the deposits of Rs.531500.00 out of Rs.7.00 lacs in the petitioner’s current account, which were stated to be sale proceeds of two different properties for Rs.3.00 lacs and Rs.4.00 lacs, were not based on facts and, accordingly, were not acceptable and hence the allegations were found substantiated. The documents produced as Exhibits on behalf of the petitioner, namely the sale deed (DEX 7/1-50) and the affidavit signed by Mahboob Alam dated 15 December 2014 (DEX 6/1-2), were found to be not testified and verified by the concerned persons. The petitioner had submitted photocopies of the said documents during the regular hearing and the seller and purchaser of the properties were different from the depositors as the properties were sold by the co-owners (one of them being the petitioner) to Smt. Khitab-un-nisa. Admittedly, Smt. Khitab-un-nisa had filed no affidavit before the Inquiring Authority with respect to the sale deeds of the two properties sold by the co-owners to her. The affidavit in question was signed by her husband Mahboob Alam. The Inquiring Authority further observed that the sale deeds did not envisage making of payment in installments. With regard to the deposit of Rs.2.20 lacs out of Rs.2.70 lacs in the petitioner’s account which was stated to be the sale proceeds of a used tractor was found by the Inquiring Authority not to be based on facts as there was no proof of ownership of a used tractor available and hence the allegation was found to be substantiated. It is noted that no witness was produced by the petitioner during the inquiry for proving the documents produced by him. 13. It is noted that no witness was produced by the petitioner during the inquiry for proving the documents produced by him. 13. The sale deeds of purchase of tractor and sale of tractor bearing Registration No. UP 55-B 4640 (DEX 8/1-2) were not testified and verified by the concerned persons and the petitioner had submitted merely photocopies of the said documents. Moreover, the seller and purchaser of the tractor were found to be different from the depositors. The allegation of two transactions of Rs.1.00 lac each aggregating Rs.2.00 lacs in the current account of the petitioner was found to be substantiated as the petitioner’s wife Smt. Bindu Devi was availing Kisan Credit Card Limit and the proceeds of sale of crops were required to be deposited in the particular KCC account and not in the current account of the petitioner. Moreover, the Inquiring Authority found that the certificates of agriculture income and agriculture land holding in the name of Smt. Bindu Devi, the wife of the petitioner (DEX 10/1-7), were not testified and verified by the concerned persons. Further, allegations of the cash deposits of Rs.70000.00 and Rs.50000.00 on different dates were also substantiated. Hence, the Inquiring Authority found that the credits in the petitioner’s account at the Badhya Branch were disproportionate to his known sources of income and the allegations were substantiated to the extent of Rs.1071500.00 and a sum of Rs.382000.00 was found to be unsubstantiated. Therefore, the charge no.1 was found to be partly proved against the petitioner. 14. With regard to charge no.2, the Inquiring Authority found the credit entries aggregating Rs.1071500.00 were of suspicious nature amounting to laundering of ill-gotten/un-accounted money amassed either by the petitioner or someone else routed through his account with his connivance and, accordingly, charge no.2 was also found partly proved. 15. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 25 June 2014 before the Disciplinary Authority containing his submission against the findings of the Inquiring Authority that has been enclosed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. 16. By means of a letter dated 27 February 2015, the Inquiring Authority, after examining the records of the case and after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner on 3 February 2015, imposed on him a major penalty of removal from service in terms of Rule 67(i) of the SBIOSR. 16. By means of a letter dated 27 February 2015, the Inquiring Authority, after examining the records of the case and after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner on 3 February 2015, imposed on him a major penalty of removal from service in terms of Rule 67(i) of the SBIOSR. A perusal of the detailed order that has been enclosed alongwith the letter dated 27 February 2015 sent by the Disciplinary Authority reveals that the same has been passed after considering the entire records of the case. It is noted that even in the representation made by the petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority against the findings of the Inquiring Authority, he did not enclose the original documents which were found wanting by the Inquiring Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, being in agreement with the findings of the Inquiring Authority in respect of both the charges, imposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. 17. The petitioner then filed an appeal dated 6 April 2015 before the Appellate Authority of the Bank. The Appellate Authority by means of an order dated 23 July 2015 considered all the submissions raised by the petitioner in his appeal and rejected the contentions of the petitioner and found that the penalty imposed on him is equitable and commensurate with the gravity of the charges held proved against him. With regard to the sale of the two different properties through two sale deeds in question, the Appellate Authority has observed that no agreement to sell between the sellers and purchaser showing agreed terms and conditions for payment of the value of the properties was produced. The sold properties were owned by four persons including the petitioner and as such in the absence anything mentioned contrary in the sale deed, the maximum amount of the petitioner’s share would be 1/4th of Rs.7.00 lacs. The affidavit of Smt. Khitab-un-nisa wife of Mahbool Alam dated 30 March 2015 and the affidavit of Mahboob Alam dated 31 March 2015 were found to be only an afterthought. The Appellate Authority observed that the petitioner could not even get his Defence Exhibits proved by the concerned persons during the inquiry proceedings. With regard to the petitioner’s contention regarding the deposit from the sale of tractor, it was found to be not tenable. The Appellate Authority observed that the petitioner could not even get his Defence Exhibits proved by the concerned persons during the inquiry proceedings. With regard to the petitioner’s contention regarding the deposit from the sale of tractor, it was found to be not tenable. The proceeds of sale of crops were required to be deposited in the KCC account of the wife of the petitioner irrespective of IRAC status of the account and as such the contention was found not tenable. With regard to the other submissions or the contentions of the petitioner, they were also found not tenable and, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The Review Committee considered the grounds of review raised by the petitioner in his review petition and pursuant to the proceedings of the meeting held on 31st December 2015, the Review Committee rejected the review petition of the petitioner. 18. While relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Appellate Authority has not properly considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal and as such is vitiated. He has referred to the case of M.V. Bijlani (supra) in an attempt to substantiate that there was no adequate evidence on record before the Disciplinary Authority to arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. Reliance on the case of Krishna Narayan Tewari (supra) has also been made in an attempt to substantiate that the Writ Court would interfere in the disciplinary proceedings or resultant orders passed by the competent authority if the inquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice or non-application of mind by the Inquiring Authority or the Disciplinary Authority or non recording of reasons in support of conclusion arrived at by them. In that case, it was demonstrated that the inquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in defence and without the said contention being rebutted by the appellant and that the Appellate Authority, instead of recording its own reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, simply reproduced the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. 19. In our opinion, the aforesaid judgments are of no help to the petitioner. 19. In our opinion, the aforesaid judgments are of no help to the petitioner. On considering the inquiry report, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the Review Committee, it cannot be said that no adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner, that charges were not duly proved, or that there was no application of mind by the Inquiring Authority or the Disciplinary Authority, or that the Appellate Authority had merely reproduced the version of the Disciplinary Authority without independently applying its mind. The inquiry report and the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Review Committee reveal that the proceedings were conducted and the orders were passed in accordance with law. It is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that any particular provision of the SBIOSR has been violated or was not complied with by the respondents. This Court would not sit in appeal over the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority or the Review Committee. We are not required to re-appreciate the evidence which has been considered by the Inquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority (State Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde). As observed by a Bench of this Court in Mayank Agarwal (supra), the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision making process which cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision. Moreover, in the case of Jagdish Sharan Varshney (supra), the Supreme Court has clearly observed that the Appellate Authority in an order of affirmance is required to record reasons even though they may be brief. The Appellate Authority has considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal and has recorded its reasons after proper application of mind and has rejected the appeal. The Review Committee has, after considering the submissions, also recorded reasons for rejecting the review of the petitioner, a perusal of which would lead us to the inescapable conclusion that reasons have been recorded by the Review Committee while rejecting the review. 20. The charges and allegations made against the petitioner were undoubtedly serious in nature. The authenticity and genuineness of the documents that were produced by the Presenting Officer of the respondent-Bank during the course of the inquiry, was accepted by the petitioner. 20. The charges and allegations made against the petitioner were undoubtedly serious in nature. The authenticity and genuineness of the documents that were produced by the Presenting Officer of the respondent-Bank during the course of the inquiry, was accepted by the petitioner. In the present case, all the relevant documents were produced in the inquiry to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner. As is apparent from the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner did not produce any witness to substantiate the documents filed by him. He had filed photocopy of the documents and not original ones which was noted by the Inquiring Authority. Even the affidavit filed by the petitioner to substantiate the sale deeds was of the husband of the actual purchaser of the land. Most of the deposits made in the aforementioned two bank accounts of the petitioner could not be satisfactorily explained by him and, therefore, the allegations against the petitioner were found to be substantiated. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364 the Supreme Court held as follows: “14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank...................” 21. Further, in the case of Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Etawha & Ors. Vs. Hoti Lal & Anr., (2003) 3 SCC 605 the Supreme Court held as under : “If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is must and unexceptionable. 22. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the law as established, this writ petition is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.