Belkhaia War vs Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. & Ors

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge has been made to the order dated 23.03.2004 passed by the respondent No.2 imposing major penalty dismissing the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2004, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2018 which has also been assailed.

The petitioner claims that he was an employee of Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Private Limited since the year 1987 and serving as Junior Supervisor. In the year 1999 the petitioner cleared the departmental examination and was promoted to Senior Supervisor. The job profile of the petitioner involves recovery of loan and supervising the cooperative societies in the bank. The petitioner was suspended from service in the year 2000 and thereafter dismissed in the year 2004 vide order dated 23.03.2004. The petitioner states that if he had not been dismissed from service he would have retired on 26.10.2018 upon attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years.

The petitioner asserts that he was suspended from service vide order dated 12.01.2000 on the allegation that he had violated the Staff Rules of the bank and also had fraudulently misappropriated the bank's money. Thereafter, the respondents had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and charges were also framed. Show cause notice along with the statement of allegations mentioning the details of charges/allegations framed against the petitioner were forwarded to him. According to the petitioner, the charges framed against him were that he had realized an amount of Rs. 7000/- being the recovery of loan from one Smti. Bedis Tymmeniong of Lad Sohbar towards repayment of her L.T. (Areca nut) loan account vide receipt No.141116 dated 19.04.1995 for Rs. 2000/- and receipt No.140939 dated 02.11.1995 for Rs. 5000/- availed through Mawlong SCS whereas he did not deposit the same to the loan account maintained with Cherrapunji Branch against her loan account. He was further charged with the offence of gross dereliction of duties, gross misconduct, indiscipline and gross financial irregularities causing loss to the bank.

The petitioner states that upon the charges being framed, a departmental inquiry was instituted and Shri B.M. Roy Chyne was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. On 12.08.2000, the petitioner submitted his statement of defence denying the allegations of gross dereliction of duties and gross misconduct and indiscipline on his part. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the response of the petitioner decided to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings and vide order dated 17.11.2000 directed the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer to tender his reply or evidence, if any. On 28.12.2000, the petitioner appeared in person before the Enquiry Officer, whereby points were framed on the charges made against him. On completion of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the petitioner had committed the offence as indicated in the statement of allegations and all the charges against him were proved to be true and correct. On 02.02.2002, the petitioner submitted a reply challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer and requesting that the matter be re-examined.

According to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority vide letter No.MCAB/HO/ADMN/BW/2004/B35 dated 04.03.2004 accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges against him stood proved beyond doubt. The petitioner accordingly submitted a representation dated 11.03.2004 to the respondent-bank challenging that the entire proceedings had not been conducted in a fair and proper manner with no opportunity being offered to present his case and he was neither given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced by the respondent-bank nor the documents produced by the witnesses were allowed to be examined. The petitioner pleads that the disciplinary authority has considered only the inquiry report and without taking into consideration the explanation submitted by him passed order No.MCAB/HO/ADMN/BW/2004 dated 23.03.2004 dismissing him from service with immediate effect.

It is sufficient to notice that the petitioner preferred an appeal on 30.04.2004 against the order of dismissal dated 23.03.2004 which was ultimately rejected by the appellate authority on 31.10.2018 holding that he had committed serious nature of offence and found no substance in the appeal filed by him. The dismissal order issued by the Managing Director vide Memo No.MCAB/HO/ADMN/BW/2004 dated 23.03.2004 was confirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 31.10.2018. Hence, the instant petition for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 23.03.2004 and 31.10.2018.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner had collected Rs. 7000/- from Smti. Bedis Tymmeniong for depositing it into the loan account maintained at Cherrapunji Branch as per details given below:-

"(a) Receipt No.141116 dated 19.04.1995 for Rs. 2000/-;

(b) Receipt No.140939 dated 02.11.1995 for Rs. 5000/-"

However, the petitioner failed to deposit the aforesaid amount collected from Smti. Bedis Tymmeniong. Explanation letter was issued to Shri Belkhaia War vide Head Office letter No.MCAB/HO/ADMN- DIVN/BW/SUPR/2000/176 dated 05.01.2000 directing him to explain his position as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted the following letter dated 08.01.2000 wherein it was stated as under:-

"During this period my father was in critical condition and was admitted in the K.J.P. Hospital Shillong and unfortunately he was expired on 08.10.1995. During this time I have got no conscience/confusion and during this time I have forgot whether I have recovered any loan from any borrower/loanees, but always after returning from tour, I have hand-over any loan recovery to my friends who are working together and continuing my tour programme. I therefore request you to kindly excuse me and the above amount will repay within one month."

After putting the petitioner under suspension on 12.01.2000, the charge sheet was issued on 20.07.2000 wherein the following charges were levelled against him:-

"1. Gross dereliction of duties

Gross misconduct and indiscipline

Gross financial irregularities causing loss to the Bank."

Ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority concluded the enquiry and passed the order vide Memo No.MCAB/HO/ADMN/BW/2004 dated 23.03.2004 inflicting the following punishments:-

"Shri B. War, Supervisior (U/s) is hereby dismissed from the services of the Bank with immediate effect. 2. An amount of Rs. 7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) shall be recovered from his claims to the Bank."

A perusal of reply dated 08.01.2000 submitted by the petitioner categorically shows that there has been admission of the guilt on the part of the petitioner as he had requested even after about five years seeking one month time to repay the amount. This in unambiguous terms depicts the admission of the guilt. The petitioner even after five years instead of depositing the amount forthwith to demonstrate that it was by mistake that he did not deposited the amount, rather chose to seek one month more time which clearly shows the criminal intent of the petitioner.

Further, in the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, it was claimed that handwriting and signature on the receipts were forged by someone. The Bank on 23.08.2003 had sought the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Meghalaya which had opined that receipt No.141116 dated 19.04.1995 for Rs. 2000/- and receipt No.140939 dated 02.11.1995 for Rs. 5000/- was signed by the same person as compared with various other documents bearing petitioner's signature. Still further, the petitioner was required to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 17.10.2002 vide letter dated 04.10.2002 but inspite of opportunity provided to him, he chose not to put in appearance. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances and the material on record leads to irresistible conclusion that the charges/offence against the petitioner stands established. Thus, the report/finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be faulted. The appeal was also rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case Shri Gautam Dhar v. State Bank of India & ors: WA No.59 of 2017 decided on 11.06.2019, held that in banking business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty is required to be preserved by every bank employee/officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. A bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank ought 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. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. It is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in the case when the officer/employee acted contrary to basic norms.

It was further recorded that the very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Sympathy or generosity as a factor is impermissible. Loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. In the case of a bank, every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear. The functioning of the Bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations.

Still further, it was noticed that it is well settled that a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Still further, the court has to record reasons to say as to how the punishment imposed on the delinquent is shockingly or grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges held proved against him. Normally the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court except in appropriate cases and that too only after examining all the factors including the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained and the department/establishment in which the delinquent person concerned works.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in concluding the departmental enquiry and also deciding the appeal had caused prejudice to the petitioner and in such circumstances, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan: (1998) 4 SCC 154 dismissal order ought to have been revoked.

I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission. In so far as the departmental enquiry is concerned, there was no delay on the part of the employer. In such circumstances, the order dated 23.03.2004 cannot be faulted. The petitioner was also dismissed from service on 23.03.2004. Though there has been some delay on the part of the appellate authority in deciding the appeal but that by itself cannot be held to be fatal as the appeal had affirmed the order of respondent No.2. No prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner in any manner. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in N. Radhakishan's case (supra), thus, does not come to his rescue as it was based on its own facts.

In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 23.03.2004 and 31.10.2018. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.