Central Bank of India vs Niranjan Sinha

Rekha Manharlal Doshit, C.J.—No one is present on behalf of the respondent. This Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the respondent-Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") against the judgment and order dated 7th September, 2010 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No. 13123 of 1996.

The respondent-writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 13123 of 1996 to challenge the order of reduction in pay by four stages made by the disciplinary authority on 15th July, 1993, and confirmed by the appellate authority on 11th February, 1994.

On 9th June, 1991 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against writ petitioner, the then Branch Manager, Teghra Branch of the Bank on four counts of financial irregularities. It was alleged that while functioning as the Branch Manager, during the period from September 1990 to January 1991, he allowed a current account holder one Bajrang Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited to withdraw certain amounts totaling to around rupees seventy five lakhs, without obtaining security, although the said account holder did not enjoy the cash credit/overdraft facility. The transactions were not entered in the register with a view to concealing the same. The allegations were denied by the petitioner. After due disciplinary proceeding, the enquiry officer opined that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Pursuant to the said finding, the punishment of reduction in pay by four stages was imposed. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority on 11 February, 1994. Therefore, the Petition.

The petition was contested by the Bank. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition. According to the learned single Judge, it was a case of no evidence. The Bank had failed to prove that the alleged cash credit/over-draft facility to the current account holder M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited was indeed allowed by the petitioner. In view of the said finding, the learned single Judge has set aside the order of punishment made by the disciplinary authority and the order made by the appellate authority. Therefore, this Appeal.

Learned Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha has appeared for the Bank. He has produced a copy of the proceedings before the enquiry officer.

We have perused the charge-sheet and the proceedings. It cannot be a gainsaid that the petitioner was charged with grave acts of misconduct of financial irregularities. In support of the charges, the Bank had produced the relevant documents and had also examined certain witnesses. The petitioner had been given ample opportunity of defence. He had appeared through a representative. The representative of the petitioner had cross-examined the witnesses in extenso. Neither it was a case of no evidence nor it was a case of violation of principles of natural justice nor it was a case of procedural infirmity. This Court, exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, will not sit in appeal over the disciplinary proceedings, reevaluate the evidence and record its own finding. In our opinion, the order of punishment of reduction in pay can hardly be said to be an adequate punishment for the gross acts of financial irregularities proved against the petitioner. This is not a case where the learned single Judge ought to have interfered to hold that the imputation of charges made against the petitioner was not proved or that it was a case of no evidence.

For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 7th September, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 13123 of 1996 is set aside. CWJC No. 13123 of 1996 is dismissed. I.A. No. 130 of 2011 stands disposed of.