Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 250 (KAR)

Nagaraja Setty D. v. Indian Bank

2024-03-26

N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent - Bank in the year 1979 and was promoted as a Cashier in the year 1991. 2. On 29/3/2014, a notice was issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation relating to three allegations. 3. The first allegation was that on 17/12/2012, the petitioner had accepted cash receipt of Rs.5, 500.00 from one Sri. K.Raghavendra Reddy and he had not given the correspondent credit to the account, and though there was a signed challan dtd. 17/12/2012, the account was credited only on 18/12/2012. It was stated that a complaint was made by the customer in this regard and on 8/2/2013, the customer reiterated and confirmed his earlier complaint. 4. The second allegation was that on 3/9/2013, there was excess cash of Rs.200.00 that was not reported by the petitioner and said amount related to the transaction made with respect to the SB Account of one Master B.Rohit Kumar, in respect of which the cash voucher was found with the day's vouchers but the entry was not found in the cash report and e-VVR portal. Furthermore, it was stated that on 5/9/2013, the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.200.00 from his SB Account and credited a sum of Rs.250.00 to the account of said Master B.Rohit Kumar and had completed the aforementioned transaction. 5. The third allegation was that on 30/12/2013, the petitioner had made a cash payment of Rs.1, 07, 600.00 to Sri A.Mallanna Gouda, but while making the payment there was a shortfall of Rs.10, 000.00 and the entire excess amount available with the petitioner was not revealed. However, on the same day, the petitioner had telephonically informed the customer about the short payment of Rs.10, 000.00 and had asked him to collect the same from him. It was stated that the petitioner had not accounted the excess amount available with him in full and had credited only Rs.5, 000.00 to the sundry deposit instead of Rs.10, 000.00. 6. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 21/4/2014. However, the Disciplinary Authority took the view that the reply given by the petitioner was unacceptable and proceeded to frame three charges identical to the allegations made in the notice referred to above. For the purpose of convenience, the charges are re-produced herein: "1. 6. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 21/4/2014. However, the Disciplinary Authority took the view that the reply given by the petitioner was unacceptable and proceeded to frame three charges identical to the allegations made in the notice referred to above. For the purpose of convenience, the charges are re-produced herein: "1. That on 17/12/2012, you accepted a cash receipt of Rs.5500.00 from Sri.K.Raghavendra Reddy, SB account customer-A/c No.776598278, without giving corresponding credit to the account. A signed challan reflecting the date as 17/12/2012 is available along with the day's voucher. The account is credited only on 18/12/2012. A complaint is made by the customer in this regard. Further on 8/2/2014 the customer has reiterated and confirmed his earlier complaint. 2. That a cash excess of Rs.200.00 was not reported by you on 3/9/2013 in the transaction made in the SB Account of Master of B.Rohit Kumar. Cash voucher in the account of Master B.Rohit Kumar is found with the day's vouchers. The entry is not found in cash report and e VVR portal. On 5/9/2013, you have withdrawn Rs.200.00 from your SB account number 573540443, credited an amount of Rs.250.00 in account 6158218459 of Master B.Rohit Kumar by routing it through Sundry Deposit and completed the above transaction. 3. That on 30/12/2013, you made a cash payment of Rs.1, 07, 600.00 to Mr.A.Mallanna Gouda-SB a/c 6148306175. You have reportedly given him a short payment of Rs.10000.00. You have not revealed the entire excess amount available with you after completion of payment transaction. On the same day you telephonically informed the customer about short payment of Rs.10000.00 in the payment made to him in this transaction and the balance excess cash was available with you and to collect the same from you. You have not accounted for the excess amount available with you in full and credited only Rs.5000.00 to sundry deposit instead of Rs.10000.00 on 31/12/2013." 7. The petitioner accordingly submitted his explanation on 14/6/2014. 8. As regards the first charge, the petitioner admitted that he had accepted cash receipt of Rs.5, 500.00 from Sri. K.Raghavendra Reddy. You have not accounted for the excess amount available with you in full and credited only Rs.5000.00 to sundry deposit instead of Rs.10000.00 on 31/12/2013." 7. The petitioner accordingly submitted his explanation on 14/6/2014. 8. As regards the first charge, the petitioner admitted that he had accepted cash receipt of Rs.5, 500.00 from Sri. K.Raghavendra Reddy. He stated that on that particular day, he had 'closed the cash' at about 7.00 p.m. due to heavy cash transactions and also due to incessant connectivity problems, while 'closing the cash', a sum of Rs.5, 500.00 was found to be in excess and since it was already too late on that day, he placed the amount separately in a drawer. On the following day, after verifying, he credited said amount to the account of the concerned customer and there was thus no misconduct on his part. 9. As regards the second charge, he stated that one Sri. B.Eranna (a customer of the Bank) had come to the Branch on 3/9/2013 with two SB account-opening forms for opening accounts in the name of his minor children and, in this regard, had given a cash challan of Rs.250.00 in respect of one account. In his reply, he has indicated that he had accepted the challan and had opened an SB account in respect of one minor child of Sri. Eranna. In respect the second account i.e., of Master Rohit Kumar, the petitioner had received a cash challan of Rs.200.00 and because the system did not accept Rs.200.00 since the minimum was Rs.250.00, he requested Sri. Eranna to give him Rs.50.00 and since Sri. Eranna did possess any cash, he gave back Rs.200.00 to him and in this process, he contends to have forgotten to give back the challan and the same was included in the day's vouchers. He therefore stated that he had not received any excess cash. 10. He also stated that on 5/9/2013, Sri. Eranna came back with Rs.50.00 and had stated that he had already given Rs.200.00 to him on the previous day and since the Assistant Branch Manager intervened and advised him to pay Rs.200.00 as he had already released the cash challan on 3/9/2013, he adhered to the same and transferred Rs.200.00 from his SB account, and upon receiving Rs.50.00 given by Sri Eranna, he opened the SB account of Master Rohit Kumar. Thus, he stated once again that he had not received any excess cash. 11. As regards the third charge concerned, he stated that there was cash payment of Rs.1, 07, 600.00 to Sri A.Mallanna Gouda and at the end of the day, after tallying cash, he found that there was excess cash of Rs.5, 000.00 and the same was reported to his Assistant Branch Manager, and as per his instructions, the same was credited to the sundry deposit account on 31/12/2013. He further stated that on the night of 30/12/2013, Sri. Mallanna Gouda called to inform him that the payment received by him was short of Rs.10, 000.00 and the petitioner, in turn, informed him that there was excess cash of Rs.5, 000.00 and that the same was kept in the Bank. Accordingly, Mallanna Gouda came to the Bank on the following day and insisted that he had pay a sum of Rs.10, 000.00. The Branch Manager intervened and advised him to pay the amount of Rs.10, 000.00 to avoid untoward problems, and as per his advice, he went home and paid Rs.10, 000.00 to Sri. Mallanna Gouda and even now, the amount of Rs.5, 000.00 is in the sundry deposit and the same had not been reversed. He, therefore, stated that only a sum of Rs.5, 000.00 was in excess on 30/12/2013 and as per the advice of the Branch Manager, he paid Rs.10, 000.00 to said Sri. Mallanna Gouda. 12. Thus, as could be seen from the above, the petitioner basically denied any wrongdoing in respect of the three allegations made against him. 13. The Enquiry Officer then conducted an enquiry wherein 23 documents were marked and four witnesses were examined on behalf of the Bank. 14. The petitioner, in his defence, produced one document and did not examine any witnesses from his side. 15. The enquiry was concluded on 26/8/2014 and written briefs were filed by the Bank on 8/9/2014 while the petitioner filed his on 29/11/2014. 16. The Enquiry Officer, on consideration of the materials produced and the evidence adduced during the course of enquiry, recorded a finding that all three charges stood proved. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his response stating that the earlier replies that he had given on 14/6/2014 and 29/11/2014 would be the reply to the enquiry report. 17. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his response stating that the earlier replies that he had given on 14/6/2014 and 29/11/2014 would be the reply to the enquiry report. 17. The Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the enquiry report and the replies filed by the petitioner, proceeded to take the view that the petitioner was guilty of the charges alleged against him and for the proved misconduct, the punishment of dismissal from service was appropriate. The Bank accordingly proceeded to pass an order to that effect on 5/12/2014. 18. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide the order dtd. 30/11/2015. 19. As a consequence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on him, as well as the affirmation of the same by the Appellate Authority. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was absolutely no justification to hold that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. He submitted that the first charge related to an incident which occurred on 17/12/2012 i.e., two years prior to filing of the chargesheet and this charge was regarding not remitting the corresponding credit into the customer's account after accepting cash of Rs.5, 500.00. He further averred that it was admitted in the chargesheet that the amount that was received on 17/12/2012 was credited on the following day itself and, therefore, it would be improper to even level said charge against the petitioner. It was also highlighted that the customer was stated to have given a complaint nearly two months after said incident and this, by itself, proves that stale complaints were being revived in order to harass the petitioner. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the second charge regarding the receipt of the sum of Rs.200.00 by the petitioner, which was stated to have been received on 3/9/2013 but was only credited to the respective account on 5/9/2013, also indicated that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the petitioner. It was highlighted that the petitioner paid the amount due to intervention by the Assistant Branch Manager, as the customer had raised an unnecessary dispute. It was highlighted that the petitioner paid the amount due to intervention by the Assistant Branch Manager, as the customer had raised an unnecessary dispute. He also contended that this complaint was also in relation to an incident which had occurred nearly six months prior to the issuance of the chargesheet and that this further established that stale claims were being revived with a view to harass the petitioner. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as regards the third charge, the charge itself indicated that the petitioner had informed the customer about the short payment and that the excess cash was kept in the Bank. He also argued that the petitioner had also requested the customer to collect the same and that this fact clearly established that there was no intent of misappropriating the monies or cheating the customer. He also stated that this event also related to an incident which had occurred three months prior to the issuance of the chargesheet and that in this regard, there could be no justification whatsoever in levelling the charges against the petitioner. 23. Learned counsel also submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument that all the charges were proved, considering the gravity of the charges alleged, the imposition of the extreme punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner, who had rendered a long service of nearly 30 years without any blemish, was shocking disproportionate. 24. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent - Bank contended that the evidence on record clearly indicated the wrongdoings on the part of the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer was hence justified in submitting the report indicating that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been established. He submitted that the petitioner was working as a Cashier and any wrongdoing on his part in relation to withholding of excess cash or not crediting the cash that he had received, were serious allegations and when such allegations stood provided, the only punishment that could be imposed is one of dismissal. He, therefore, submitted that the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the impugned punishment and the Appellate Authority also found no reason to interfere with said order of punishment, and consequently, there is no merit to entertain this writ petition. 25. He, therefore, submitted that the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the impugned punishment and the Appellate Authority also found no reason to interfere with said order of punishment, and consequently, there is no merit to entertain this writ petition. 25. In light of the arguments made above, the question that would arise for consideration in this writ petition is: Whether the respondent - Bank was justified in holding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, which justified the punishment of dismissal from service. 26. The first charge against the petitioner was in relation to an incident which occurred on 17/12/2012 and the allegation was that the petitioner had accepted the cash receipt of Rs.5, 500.00, but had failed to give the corresponding credit to the customer's account, despite there being a signed challan reflecting the date of receipt of said amount as 17/12/2012. It is, however, clearly admitted in said charge itself that this amount was credited on the very following day. In light of this clear admission in the chargesheet that the amount was credited on the following day, it is clear that there is no allegation of misappropriation of any kind. 27. The defence put forth by the petitioner was that on 17/12/2012, it was 7.00 p.m. by the time the petitioner 'closed the cash' and due to this reason, though he found excess cash of Rs.5, 500.00 while doing so, he kept the amount in the drawer before crediting the amount on the following day, on being informed that there was an entry in the referred account. The petitioner has also stated that this oversight was due to the fact that he was exhausted due to heavy transactions on that particular day and in addition to this, there was also a connectivity issue on the same day, and upon immediately gaining knowledge of said transaction, he did credit the sum to the customer's account. 28. In my view, having regard to the fact that the petitioner admitted that there was a lapse on his part and it was also acknowledged by the Bank that the credit was given to the customer's account on the very following day, levelling of a charge against the petitioner would be untenable. 29. 28. In my view, having regard to the fact that the petitioner admitted that there was a lapse on his part and it was also acknowledged by the Bank that the credit was given to the customer's account on the very following day, levelling of a charge against the petitioner would be untenable. 29. It is also to be noticed here that this allegation of not crediting the amount to the account of the customer was raised nearly 15 months after the incident occurred. The chargesheet also stated that the complaint in this regard was made two months after the incident took place. The fact that a wrongdoing which was acknowledged and corrected immediately was sought to be revived nearly 15 months thereafter, indicates that the Bank was targeting the petitioner. This observation is found justified having regard to the further charge that was made against the petitioner. 30. The second charge was that the petitioner had not reported the receipt of Rs.200.00 in respect of opening of the account of Master B.Rohit Kumar, despite the cash voucher being found in day's vouchers and that no corresponding entry was found in the cash report or e-VVR portal in this regard. To this charge, the petitioner had stated that one Sri. Eranna had come to the Branch to open two SB accounts in favour of his two minor children and in respect of one account, he had given a cash challan of Rs.250.00 and for the other account, which was opening the account of Master B.Rohit Kumar, he was given only Rs.200.00 and since the system did not accept Rs.200.00 for the reason of the minimum amount accepted being Rs.250.00 for the opening of an SB account, he had requested Sri. Eranna to pay Rs.50.00 and since he did not have cash on him, he requested that he would pay the same subsequently, and thus, the petitioner gave back the sum of Rs.200.00 to Sri. Eranna, but he stated that he had forgotten to give back the challan to Sri. Eranna, and consequently, it was included in the day's vouchers and he therefore stated that he did not receive any cash. 31. However, Sri. Eranna, but he stated that he had forgotten to give back the challan to Sri. Eranna, and consequently, it was included in the day's vouchers and he therefore stated that he did not receive any cash. 31. However, Sri. Eranna on the following day stated that he had already given Rs.200.00 to the petitioner and that due to the intervention of the Assistant Branch Manager, he paid a sum of Rs.200.00 from his account and collected a sum of Rs.50.00 from Sri. Eranna before crediting the same towards the SB account opening form. A perusal of this defence of the petitioner would also indicate that on immediately being informed about the irregularity, the petitioner accepted the advice of the Assistant Branch Manager and immediately paid the sum of Rs.200.00 from his account. Further, it is to be kept in mind that to this incident which occurred on 3/9/2013, a charge was levelled against the petitioner only on 29/3/2014 i.e., nearly six months thereafter, without there being a complaint from Sri Eranna. Thus, it is clear from this finding as well, that the respondent - Bank was targeting the petitioner. 32. As regards the third charge, the charge itself indicated that the petitioner had made a short payment to Sri.Mallanna Gouda and there was a shortfall of Rs.10, 000.00 while making said payment. The charge goes on to state that though there was excess amount of Rs.10, 000.00 which was available with the petitioner, the same was not reported, but it was also admitted in the charge itself that the petitioner himself had called Sri. Mallanna Gouda telephonically and informed him that there was a short payment of Rs.10, 000.00 made to him and the balance excess cash was available in the Bank, which could be collected on the following day. This charge also indicates that on coming to know that short payment was made to the customer, the petitioner himself telephonically informed about the short payment, which, by itself, clearly indicates that there was no intent of the petitioner trying to cheat a customer or the Bank. 33. The petitioner, in fact, in his defence stated that the short fall was only of Rs.5, 000.00 and he had called Sri.Mallanna Gouda to inform him about the same to have it collected. 33. The petitioner, in fact, in his defence stated that the short fall was only of Rs.5, 000.00 and he had called Sri.Mallanna Gouda to inform him about the same to have it collected. But on the following day, Sri.Mallanna Gouda insisted that there was a short fall of Rs.10, 000.00 and since the Branch Manager intervened and advised him to avoid unnecessary dispute, he paid Rs.10, 000.00 to said Sri.Mallanna Gouda. It is to be noticed here that the petitioner had clearly stated that the excess amount that he had found was kept in the sundry deposit and the entry was not reversed even to the day he filed his reply. This charge also indicates that the petitioner himself had informed the customer about the shortfall, thereby establishing that there was no intent to appropriate the money for himself. If the petitioner is stated to have voluntarily called the customer even according to the charge, the allegation of any wrongdoing on the part of the petitioner would be ill-founded. 34. In light of the above facts, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer regarding the first and the second charges cannot be sustained. As already stated above, the first and the second charges related to incidents which occurred in the months of December and September of 2013, and the chargesheet was issued only in the month of March, 2014, and in respect of the incidents which the petitioner did not seriously dispute and the charge itself indicated that the irregularities in crediting the account and making the payment of Rs.200.00 was admitted, the Bank ought not to have charged the petitioner with such frivolous charges. 35. As regards the third charge, it is noticed from the charge itself that the petitioner was stated to have called the customer on the very same day on which the short payment was made and had asked the customer to come to the Bank to collect the same. On consideration of this particular averment in the third charge, the allegation that there was misconduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be accepted at all. 36. It is to be noticed here that no employee would be immune from committing errors and in order to construe an error as misconduct, the intent of deliberately cheating a customer or the employer would be absolutely necessary. 36. It is to be noticed here that no employee would be immune from committing errors and in order to construe an error as misconduct, the intent of deliberately cheating a customer or the employer would be absolutely necessary. The fact that in all the three charges the Bank itself admitted that the irregularities or the errors committed by the petitioner were corrected immediately and voluntarily, and in respect of the third charge, which was the most serious one, when the petitioner had himself called the customer and reported the shortfall in payment, it was clear that the petitioner had acknowledged his error to the customer and had sought to correct the error. In the light of this fact, the approach of the Bank in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, who had rendered a service of 34 years, would be untenable. 37. In view of the fact that the Bank does not dispute that the petitioner had a service record without any blemish and had worked for 34 years without demur, the initiation of proceedings on charges which were stale and which related to the periods in excess of a year clearly indicate that the petitioner was targeted, for reasons best known to them. 38. The Disciplinary Authority without considering the matter in proper perspective has come to the conclusion that as the charges were proved, the petitioner was liable to be dismissed from service. The Appellate Authority has also affirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority without considering the matter in proper perspective. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned orders are unsustainable. 39. It is also to be borne in mind that in respect of the charges which had not ended in financial loss and when the charges themselves indicated that the petitioner had acted with promptitude and had voluntarily corrected his mistakes, the imposition of extreme punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner, who had rendered 34 years of service without any blemish and who was at the verge of retirement, would be untenable. 40. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Nikunja Bihari Patnaik and the judgment in the case of S.R.Tewari. Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 . S.R.Tewari v. Union of India and Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 602 41. 40. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Nikunja Bihari Patnaik and the judgment in the case of S.R.Tewari. Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 . S.R.Tewari v. Union of India and Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 602 41. In the judgment of Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (supra1), the charges levelled against the petitioner therein were of serious nature and pertained to allowing overdrafts or passing of cheques involving substantial amounts beyond his authority without any delegated powers and beyond his discretionary powers; allowing drawings in cash credit accounts beyond the sanctioned limits; sanctioning number of term loans directly without observing the Bank's rules and guidelines, etc. In the context of those facts, the Apex Court stated that the discipline of an organization, a Bank in particular, was depending on each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere and if a person acted beyond one's authority, that by itself would be a breach of discipline. The facts of that case cannot be compared to the facts of the present case, in which, at best, the allegation of the petitioner could only amount to an error of judgment in discharge of his duties. 42. As regards the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in S.R.Tewari's (supra2) case, the Apex Court has held that the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority should not be interfered with unless it shocks the conscience of the Court and that the role of the Court in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. In this case, the evidence on record clearly discloses that the entire proceedings against the petitioner were initiated on stale charges and the charges themselves admitted that the petitioner had corrected his mistakes immediately. In fact, as stated above, the third charge (which is also the most serious charge out of the three) admits the fact that the petitioner had himself called the customer and informed him about the short fall in payment made to him. This demonstrates that it was not the intent of the petitioner to commit any deliberate wrongdoing. In my view, therefore, S.R.Tewari (supra2) would also have no application. 43. Consequently, in my view, the impugned orders are unsustainable and the same are accordingly quashed. 44. This demonstrates that it was not the intent of the petitioner to commit any deliberate wrongdoing. In my view, therefore, S.R.Tewari (supra2) would also have no application. 43. Consequently, in my view, the impugned orders are unsustainable and the same are accordingly quashed. 44. As a consequence, the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result of the order of punishment being set aside in his favour, which shall be computed and made over to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 45. Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.