Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 615 (MP)

State Bank Of India v. Smt. Reeta Agrawal

2020-05-21

SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/Bank is questioning the correctness and validity of order dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure- P/12) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby the reference made to it by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been decided by the Tribunal, which reads as under:- 'Whether the dismissal of Shri S.S. Agrawal, Deputy Head Cashier, State Bank of India, Khargone by the Regional Manager, SBI Bhopal is justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?' Thereafter, the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and directed reinstatement of Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal with 50% back-wages. 2. The facts of the case in a narrow compass are:- That the respondent/employee was working as a Deputy Head Cashier at Khargone Branch in the petitioners Bank. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 14.06.1985 (Annexure-P/1) levelling two charges and thereafter a regular departmental enquiry was conducted in which the Enquiry Officer submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority holding both the charges found proved against the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter passed an order of punishment on 26.11.1986 (Annexure-P/5) dismissing the respondent from service. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the respondent and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 06.03.1987 (Annexure-P/6) opined that charge No.2 was not found proved against the respondent but considering the gravity of charge No.1 which found proved against the respondent, maintained the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent/employee and the same was referred to the Tribunal, which in turn, answered the reference vide order dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure-P/12) thereby reversed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority holding that there was no sufficient evidence available against the employee to prove the misconduct as levelled against him and as such, the order of dismissal was set aside directing his reinstatement in service with 50% backwages. 3. The order impugned passed by the Tribunal has been assailed by the petitioner/Bank by filing the instant petition mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the reference by reassessing the sufficiency of evidence. 3. The order impugned passed by the Tribunal has been assailed by the petitioner/Bank by filing the instant petition mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the reference by reassessing the sufficiency of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank submits that once the enquiry is held legal and valid, the scope of interference by the Tribunal is very limited to the extent of examining as to whether the punishment imposed upon the respondent is commensurate with the charge levelled or not. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank has placed reliance upon a case of State of Gujarat & another Vs. Bhanji Gopal Karchhar reported in (2016) 12 SCC 645 . He further submits that the Tribunal has erred while reappreciating the evidence as it was sitting in appeal and also by weighing the sufficiency of the evidence. He submits that if the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are seen, the same appear to be based on the principle of preponderance of probability. As per learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank, being an employee of a financial institution it was expected from the respondent/employee to discharge its obligations with high degree of integrity. On the contrary, it was never expected from him to behave in a manner which would weaken the faith of the customers of the institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank submits that in view of the material produced by the prosecution during the course of enquiry and considering the statement of the charge-sheeted employee, charge No.1 was rightly found proved resulting in dismissal from service. The punishment inflicted upon the respondent cannot be said to be illegal and the order of dismissal in any manner, was not required to be interfered with, therefore, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside as the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. The punishment inflicted upon the respondent cannot be said to be illegal and the order of dismissal in any manner, was not required to be interfered with, therefore, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside as the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent/employee submits that during the course of enquiry, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded in which nobody had said anything against the respondent /employee and infact it is a case of no evidence, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is justified to the extent that the respondent has been directed to be reinstated but as per learned counsel for the respondent, the reinstatement should have been ordered with full back-wages, therefore, respondent has also filed a petition i.e. M.P. No.204/2019 in which wife of the respondent challenged the order passed by the Tribunal to a limited extent that instead of 50% back-wages her husband was entitled to get full back-wages. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent/employee during pendency of this petition died, therefore, his wife has come forward and filed the aforesaid petition challenging the order of the Tribunal . During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has read out the relevant part of the statement made by the witnesses during the enquiry and has stated that there was nothing against the charge-sheeted employee and, therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority inflicting the punishment of dismissal from service is illegal and has rightly been set aside by the Tribunal. He further submits that as per the statement of the account holder, he handed over the amount of Rs.4,500/- to one Shri Tulsiram Chourey and also received the counterfoil from him. As per learned counsel for the respondent, the account holder has also stated that he has never met with the respondent, therefore, holding the respondent guilty in view of the evidence of the account holder does not seem to be reasonable and justified. In support of his stand, learned counsel for the respondent has emphasised upon paragraph-16 of the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel reported in AIR 1964 SC 364 . 5. In support of his stand, learned counsel for the respondent has emphasised upon paragraph-16 of the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel reported in AIR 1964 SC 364 . 5. I have heard the factual and rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties and answered the same as discussed below:- 6. The charge, which was found proved against the respondent, is being reproduced hereinbelow:- 'A sum of Rs.4500/- was handed over on 07.12.1984 to Shri Tulsiram Chourey by one Shri Brijmohan S/o Shersingh for credit of S. B. A/c No.S-847 of Shri Shersingh and the same was not accounted for in the Banks Books. But the counterfoil of the above credit voucher was signed by you and handed over to the depositor without verifying the relative entry in the Cash Receipt Scroll. Your above mentioned act has put the Bank to grave loss." The Enquiry Officer, in respect of charge which was found proved against the respondent, has opined as under:- ' Findings of the Enquiry Officer:- Shri S.S. Agrawal has obviously misused the powers of granting receipts delegated to him by the Bank. He has kept aside all rules/procedure before granting the receipt. As per practice in the Bank, when the cash has correctly been accepted from the depositor as indicated in the relative vouchers, it is entered in the cash scroll, serial number is incorporated in the voucher and counter foil and after branding the days receipt stamp, the counter foil is delivered to the depositor after signature of the cashier as authorised by the Bank. This has not been done. The charges are proved and can confidently say that the clearcut intention of Shri Agrawal was to defraud the Bank and tarnish the image of the Bank." Likewise, the Appellate Authority has also discussed the relevant material on the basis of which, the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority found charge No.1 proved against the charge-sheeted employee and the said observation made by the Appellate Authority is reproduced hereinbelow:- 'As regards the charge no.(i) the contention of the appellant is that no corroborative evidence in support of the handwriting experts opinion report is available and only on the basis of the opinion of the handwriting expert no one can be punished. The presenting officer has produced a counterfoil wherein the signature of Shri Agrawal appears and this has been confirmed by the handwriting expert. While perusing the enquiry proceedings, I find, that Shri Agrawal has made a statement that ' eSa fo'okl ls ugha dg ldrk fd dkmUVjQkWby ij nLr[kr esjss gh gSa fdUrq fn[krs esjs nLr[kr tSls gh gSA^^ This statement amounts to admittance of the fact that the signature appearing on the counterfoil is his own since he has not categorically expressed his refusal. This is considered by me as a strong and corroborative point in support of the handwriting experts opinion. The fact that the counterfoil with the genuine signature of the employee was produced by the prosecution to substantiate the question of Shri Agrawal having received the amount, amounts to direct evidence which is also supported by the employees statement as above. The defence nowhere has recorded his protest regarding non-production of the handwriting expert nor has he voiced any demand therefore. The defence obviously appeared to be satisfied with the contention of the Enquiry Officer that 'the handwriting experts presence will not serve the purpose or necessary as he can not add more to what he has already given in his report.' The above tends to indicate that the defence indeed did not mean the presence of the handwriting expert and what he has raised is only the desire in a routine way." So far as the opinion of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in respect of charge No.1 is concerned, the same is almost similar as they relied upon the statements of the charge-sheeted employee in respect of his signature over the counterfoil. In assessing the merit of the rival submissions, it would, at the outset, be necessary to advert to the statement of the charge-sheeted employee:- 'D.C. D;k Counter foil esa D.C2 esa vkids nLr[kr gSA S.E. ;s easjss nLr[kr ugha gS yxrs esjs nLr[kr ljh[ks gh gSA fdUrq eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd ;g nLr[kr esjss gS vkSj eSus fd;s gSA P.O. fn- 7-12-84 dks cSad ds fjdkMZ ds eqrkfcd ,d fjflIV tkjh gqbZ jde 4]500@& dh vkSj Jh 'ksj flagth ds [kkrk ,l&847 tek gqoh gS mlds ij vkids gLrk{kj gS ml lnaHkZ esa vki D;k dguk pkgrs gSA S.E. eSus igys Hkh crk;k fd dkQh le; gks pqdk gS eSa fo'okl ls ugha dg ldrk gaw fd dkmUVj QkWbZy ij nLr[kr esjs gh gSA fdUrq fn[krs esjs nLr[kr tSls gh gSA^^ The Disciplinary Authority has found that the statement of the charge-sheeted employee in respect of his signature over the counterfoil amounts to admission and if he had issued the counterfoil showing deposit of Rs.4,500/- in favour of the account holder then the same ought to have been deposited in the respective account of the account holder but admittedly, that was not done and, therefore, it was found that the said fraud has been committed by the charge-sheeted employee. However, the Tribunal has dealt with this part of the statement of the charge-sheeted employee and in paragraph-11 of its order has observed as under:- '11. The evidence on record discussed above is not sufficient to hold that the delinquent had signed on the voucher of Rs. 4500/-. The amount was not received by the delinquent. It is matter of surprise that the amount of Rs. 4500/- was received by Shri Tulsiram Chourey as per the evidence of Brijmohan, S/o Sher Singh, it is not understood whether any action was taken against Tulsi Chourey. The evidence in Enquiry proceedings discussed above cannot establish the charges. The evidence of both Tulsiram and Brijmohan are silent about signature of delinquent on the voucher. Merely as the workman said in his statement that the signature appears to be like his signature cannot be termed as admission to hold workman guilty. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 Negative." 7. The evidence of both Tulsiram and Brijmohan are silent about signature of delinquent on the voucher. Merely as the workman said in his statement that the signature appears to be like his signature cannot be termed as admission to hold workman guilty. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 Negative." 7. In view of the discussion made by the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and also by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has completely lost sight over the charge levelled and as such, not considered the evidence in proper manner and further erred in holding that the statement of the charge-sheeted employee in respect of his signature over the counterfoil cannot be considered to be an admission. As per the charge levelled that the counterfoil was issued in the signature of the chargesheeted employee, therefore, it is his responsibility to prove that it was not his signature and once the counterfoil issued showing deposit of Rs.4,500/- then the said amount must have been shown in the account of the Bank and there should be a specific denial on the part of the respondent saying that it was not his signature but he was not sure about it and as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank that in a matter of disciplinary proceeding, strict rule of evidence is not applicable but the charge is proved on the principle of preponderance of probability. The Tribunal infact has given more emphasis over the statement of the account holder that he has not handed over the amount to the charge-sheeted employee as well as he has not received the receipt from him whereas the amount was handed over to Shri Tulsiram Chourey whereas the basic fact was that the counter slip was issued in favour of the account holder showing deposit of Rs.4,500/- in the signature of respondent/employee who was the then Deputy Head Cashier in the respective Bank. Hence he was rightly held responsible as to how he had issued the counterfoil when the said amount was not deposited by him in the Bank account or the respective account of the account holder. 8. Hence he was rightly held responsible as to how he had issued the counterfoil when the said amount was not deposited by him in the Bank account or the respective account of the account holder. 8. The charge-sheeted employee has not come forward with the case that he had never issued the said counterfoil and somebody has fabricated his signature over the same, therefore, observation of the Tribunal that it is a case of no evidence against the charge-sheeted employee is nothing but an exercise to reassess the evidence like an Appellate Authority and as such, exceeded its jurisdiction as has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhanji Gopal Karchhar (supra). Thus, I am also of the opinion that the respondent being an employee of a financial institution is expected to perform his obligations with high degree of integrity as has also been observed by this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Jha Vs. Union Bank of India & others in Writ Petition No.17411/2014 and in the said case this Court has observed as under:- '.......Further in the case of Bank of India & another Vs. Degala Suryanarayana reported in (1999) 5 SCC 762 the Supreme Court in paragraph 11 has held as under:- '11. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. The court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [ AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 4 SCR 718 ] the Constitution Bench has held: 'The High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not.'' 15. Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law in regard to the scope of interference in the matter of punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority, I find no reason which warrants interference in the matter. It is also not a case in which the punishment inflicted can be said to be disproportionate with the charges levelled. The petitioner being an officer of a financial institution is under obligation to discharge his duties with high degree of integrity. However, from the basic allegation made against the petitioner and his admission that the subsidy amount deposited in the several accounts though there was no sanction of loan, the same itself indicates that there was a grave misconduct committed by the petitioner on his part. Looking at the manner in which the petitioner violated the norms and regulation of the Bank especially in a matter of disbursement of the subsidy amount to the beneficiaries of the Government Scheme, I have no hesitation to say that the petitioner intentionally violated the rules and procedure of the Bank which comes within the definition of misconduct, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the punishment is not commensurate with the charges, has no substance and is hereby rejected . As has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.K. Solanki (supra) that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not liable to be interfered with unless they are perverse or without any evidence. As has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.K. Solanki (supra) that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not liable to be interfered with unless they are perverse or without any evidence. It is also observed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case that the adequacy of evidence is not subject matter of judicial review. Accordingly, here in this case, looking to the enquiry report, I am of the opinion that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are based upon the evidence adduced by the parties during the course of enquiry, therefore, the same do not call for any interference." [Emphasis Supplied] The statement of the respondent which has been considered by the Appellate Authority in its order has rightly been held as admission on his part and, therefore, I do not find that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have committed any illegality in holding the respondent guilty in respect of committing misconduct by not depositing the amount of Rs.4,500/- in the account of Shri Sher Singh, the account holder bearing savings bank account No.S-847 despite the fact that the counterfoil showing credit of the said amount was issued in his signature. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in this petition setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority of dismissal of the respondent/employee is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. The order of the Appellate Authority is, therefore, maintained. The respondent is rightly dismissed from service as the charge levelled against him which is quoted hereinabove is rightly found proved holding him guilty of misconduct. 9. The contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent is, therefore, not acceptable as he has supported the finding given by the Tribunal saying that it is a case of no evidence and the statement of the charge-sheeted employee cannot be considered to be an admission. Since the said observation of the Tribunal has already been disapproved by this Court in the preceding paragraph, I do not find any force in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and as such, the order impugned dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure-P/12) passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. 10. In the result, the petition filed by the petitioner/Bank is hereby allowed . In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.