Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1103 (GAU)

Arun Mushahary v. Assam Gramin Vikash Bank

2019-09-25

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2019
JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard, Mr. D.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. By filing this appeal, the appellant calls into question the order dated 16.7.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1762 of 2014 filed by the appellant, wherein the order dated 30.12.2013 imposing penalty of removal from service on the appellant pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding was challenged. 3. The appellant had joined service in the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank on 28.03.1985. At the time of passing of the impugned order dated 30.12.2013, he was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier. While discharging his duties as such in Kosugaon Branch, he was served with a show cause notice dated 2.9.2010 alleging misconduct between the period 25.10.2003 to 24.09.2009, while he was posted at Serfanguri Branch. The appellant had replied back taking a stand that the irregularities had taken place because of his ignorance. Not being satisfied, a charge sheet was issued under the provisions of Regulation 39.2 (b) of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 containing the very same allegations which formed part of the notice dated 2.9.2010. The appellant had filed written statement. 4. The Enquiry Officer recorded the following findings :- "Analysis by the EO (1) In response to the charge no 1 the EO verified the documents (ME3,14,4). The CSE recorded Rs.11500 in cash book instead of actual withdrawal of Rs.1500 against SB AC no.4947/17 of Birbal Basumatary on 03.12.2004 and to compensate the same CSE enhanced Rs.10,000 in SB AC no-5095/17 of Sri Nabadwip Roy on 03.12.2004 against withdrawal of Rs.1000 but in sub cash it was recorded as Rs.11000. It is evident from the above that the CSE defrauded bank's money for Rs.10000 and the charges leveled against CSE is genuine. (2) In response to charge no.2 the EO verified the documents (ME5,6,7) and found that the CSE enhanced debit side of the cash book on 05-05-2005 by Rs.10000 i.e. Rs 21,7949 was reported as Rs. 227949. Actually Smt Minati Barman tendered a withdrawal for Rs.5,000 on 05.05.2005 but in sub cash book it was recorded as Rs.15000 to compensate Rs. 10000. It is evident that the CSE defrauded bank's money for Rs.10000 and the charge is genuine. 227949. Actually Smt Minati Barman tendered a withdrawal for Rs.5,000 on 05.05.2005 but in sub cash book it was recorded as Rs.15000 to compensate Rs. 10000. It is evident that the CSE defrauded bank's money for Rs.10000 and the charge is genuine. (3) In response to charge No.3, the EO verified the documents (ME8,10,11) and found that the CSE noted Rs.15000 in cash book of 16.07.2005 against withdrawal of Rs.5000 vide cheque no.089543 dated 14.7.2005 and to compensate the amount of Rs.10000, CSE enhanced Rs. 10000 in grand total of sub cash book as on 16.07.2005 and recorded as Rs.212150 instead of Rs.202150. The EO found that the CSE made some irregular transaction and defrauded the bank money for Rs.10000 and charge is genuine. (4) In response to the charge no. 4 the EO verified the documents (ME 13,17) and found that the CSE made an withdrawal of Rs.20000 against SB A/C 1423 of Ajit Kumar Brahma on 08.11.2008 without passing the withdrawal by authorized officer and did not record the same in the ledger sheet of respective SB AC NO-1423 as on 08.11.2008. The withdrawal slip was also written by the CSE himself. It is evident that the CSE defrauded bank's money by Rs.20000 through irregular transactions and the charge is genuine. Thus charges leveled against the CSE vide Bank's letter no.AGVB/VIG/18/02/2011-12 dated 01.04.2011 have been fully established beyond doubt in enquiry. 5. Learned Single Judge had observed as follows :- "12) Thus, from the written statement, there is no room for doubt that the petitioner has admitted that he had committed mistake of making entries in customer's ledger accounts without proper, lawful and valid written mandate in accordance with the banking norms. It is not the stand of the petitioner that he had the power and authority to disburse money to customers on verbal instructions. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner had assumed powers to disburse money without even a written mandate from the 4 (four) customers as indicated herein. Such manipulated entries were made in the customer's ledger account and in the cash book and sub- cash book of the bank without reporting such entries to the management or to his superior authority, i.e. the Branch Manager. Such manipulated entries were made in the customer's ledger account and in the cash book and sub- cash book of the bank without reporting such entries to the management or to his superior authority, i.e. the Branch Manager. Thus, it appears that the petitioner had carved out his own little empire within the bank branch and acted without authority, and that the money was returned only after charge- sheet dated 12.04.2011 was served on the petitioner. (21) The learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that prior to the initiation of disciplinary inquiry, the alleged misappropriated money had been recovered twice, from the customers and also from the petitioner. In this regard, the Court is of the opinion that even if such money is deposited, the act of such subsequent return of money does not absolve the petitioner of the misconduct. In the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank Vs. Munna Lal Jain, (2005) 10 SCC 84 , the Supreme Court of India had held that the manager of a bank who had indulged in unauthorized withdrawals, subsequently returned the amount with interest, yet his conduct of unauthorized withdrawals amounted to a serious misconduct. Similar is the situation in the present case in hand.". 6. A submission is made by Mr. Sarma that imposition of penalty of removal from service in the attending facts and circumstances is not justified, more so, when the money was recovered from the salary of the appellant. 7. This aspect of the matter was also considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had observed as follows : "24) It is well settled that normally when disciplinary proceedings has been initiated and findings of fact have been recorded in such inquiry, they cannot be interfered with unless such findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, or are such that no reasonable man may have reached. In the present case in hand, based on the facts proved in the disciplinary inquiry, the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be harsh, unjustified or disproportionate. Hence, the doctrine of proportionality invoked by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be allowed. In this regard, this Court finds support from the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank (supra).". 8. Hence, the doctrine of proportionality invoked by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be allowed. In this regard, this Court finds support from the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank (supra).". 8. A bank employee has to exercise a higher degree of honesty and integrity as he deals with deposits of the customers of the bank. 9. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed.