AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent UCO Bank.
The petitioner, who is working as an Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, is aggrieved with the impugned Order dated 30.09.2015, by which a penalty
has been imposed upon him on the basis of the departmental proceeding, by which his basic pay has been reduced by four stages till retirement, with a
further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and after expiry of the reduction period, such reduction will have
the effect of postponing further increment of his pay.
The petitioner’s case in brief is that due to various transactions regarding deposits of money in his Bank account, a departmental proceeding
was initiated against the petitioner. The Memorandum of Charge made against the petitioner shows that on the basis of 8 (eight) allegations made
against the petitioner, three Articles of Charges were framed, which are as follows:-
“1) Shri Chandra Bhusan Kumar without the previous sanction of the Bank, engaged himself directly or indirectly in trade & business
activity which is violative Regulation 6(1) of UCO Bank Office Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 6.1.
2) Shri Chandra Bhusan Kumar failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is
unbecoming of a bank officer, which is violative of Regulation 3 (1) of UCO Bank Office Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as
amended. 3.1.
3) Shri Chandra Bhusan Kumar and his family members have resorted to borrowing, which was violative of Regulation 15(1) of UCO Bank
Office Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 15.1.â€
The departmental proceeding culminated with the filing of Enquiry Report on 16.08.2015, wherein, the Enquiry Officer found that Charge Nos. 1 &
3 were not proved, while Charge No. 2 was found to be proved.
The Disciplinary Authority, while dealing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer stated that the petitioner had engaged himself directly or indirectly in
trade and business activity, without the previous sanction of the Bank and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer, which is in relation to Charge
No. 1. However, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by four stages till retirement, with a further direction that he would
not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and after the expiry of the reduction period, such reduction would have the effect of
postponing future increments of his pay. The penalty was thus imposed in relation to Charge No. 2.
The petitioner’s counsel submits that once Charge Nos. 1 & 3 are not proved, there cannot be any question of Charge No. 2 being proved,
inasmuch as, Charge No. 2 can only be consequential to the proving of Charge Nos. 1 & 3.
Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioner does not deny that there had been deposits of money in his Bank Account
from 01.10.2008 to 30.09.2012 as per the Bank statement. However, the same has been explained in his reply to the show causenotice dated
31.05.2014 and in his Defence Brief dated 12.08.2015.
Mr. M. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the UCO Bank, on the other hand submits that the 3 (three)Articles of Charge framed against the
petitioner have been made on the basis of 8 (eight) allegations which included abnormal transactions, i.e., deposit of various amounts of money in the
petitioner’s account, which did not match his known source of income.
He submits that the deposit of cash amounting to approximately Rs. 66 Lakhs having not been denied and proved by the Enquiry Officer, the
imposition of penalty on the basis of Charge No. 2 was justified.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
As has been submitted by the learned counsels for the parties, the issue involved is with regard to whether the deposit of approximately Rs. 66
Lakhs by the petitioner, who is an Assistant Manager in the respondents’ Bank, would be in violation of Regulation 3 (1) of the UCO Bank
Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (herein after referred to as the 1976 Regulations), keeping in view that Articles of Charge Nos.
1 & 3 have not been proved by the Enquiry Officer.
Charge No. 1 was that the petitioner had engaged himself directly or indirectly in trade and business activity without the previous sanction of the
Bank in violation of Regulation 6(1) of the 1976 Regulations. Charge No. 3 was that the petitioner and his family members had resorted to borrowing,
which was violative of Regulation 15(1) of the 1976 Regulations.
The Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding had held that the above 2 (two) Charges were not proved. However, the Enquiry Officer
found that with respect to Charge No. 2, i.e., failure to discharge duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is
unbecoming of a bank officer, the petitioner was found guilty or violating Regulation 3 (1) of the 1976 Regulations.
The above findings of the Enquiry Officer have been made on the basis of 8 (eight) allegations.
Regulation 3(1), 6(1) and 15(1) of the 1976 Regulations states as follows:-
“3.(1) Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his
duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer.
6.(1) No officer employee shall, except with the previous sanction of the bank, engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or
undertake any other employment:
Provided that an officer employee may, without such sanction, undertake honorary work of a social or charitable nature or occasional
work of a literary, artistic, scientific, professional, cultural, educational, religious or social character, subject to the condition that his
official duties do not thereby suffer; but he shall not undertake, or shall discontinue such work if so directed by the competent authority.
Explanation: Canvassing by an officer employee in support of the business of insurance agency or commission agency, owned or managed
by a member of his family shall be deemed to be a breach of this sub-regulation.
No officer employee shall, in his individual capacity-
(i) borrow or permit any member of his family to borrow or otherwise place himself or a member of his family under a pecuniary obligation
to a broker or a money lender or a subordinate employee of the bank or any person, association of persons, firm, company or institution,
whether incorporated or not, having dealings with the bankâ€.
The 8 (eight) allegations made against the petitioner and the finding of the Enquiry Officer after appreciating the evidence against each allegation,
is as follows:-
“Allegation 1:
The CSO had deposited cash in his CC/OD A/c No: 14820500008889 amounting to Rs. 5057499/- on different date as per details mentioned
in
Annexure-1. As per Annexure-1 there are total 105 entries.-Proved.
Allegation 2:
The CSO deposited cash amounting to Rs. 3.60 lacs in his SB A/c No; 14820100008342 in various dates between 1.10.2008 and
30.09.2012.-
Proved.
Allegation 3:
The CSO while working at BordoloniTiniali Branch cash was also deposited in CSO’s A/c amounting to Rs. 1550947/-.
The fact is that Allegation No. 3 is repetition of Allegation No. 1.
Allegation No. 4:
Cash was also deposited by CSO for closure of his Loan Account No. 1362061003916, 14820610001851, 14820610001578 &
1482061001936.-Not proved.
Allegation No. 5:
The CSO while working at BordoloniTiniali Branch has availed one Home loan with a limit of Rs. 16.00 lac for purchase of Flat at Patna
with total project cost of Rs. 25.00 lac. The margin money has been paid on 02.04.2013 & 06.04.2013 to the debit of CSO’s OD A/c
after receiving cash on the same date. EMTD was not created, certified copy of sale deed was on record & loan document were blank.-Not
proved.
Allegation No. 6:
All these above transactions did not match his known source of income.-Proved.
Allegation No. 7:
CSO while posted at BordoloniTiniali Branch he has deposited cash in other A/c of the customer namely Mr. GauriSankarMisra, M/s Zero
Enterprises, M/s. High Tech, &Rupak Das (Annexure-III) besides the A/c of his wife Mrs. BinitaKumari.-Not proved.
Allegation No. 8:
It is presumed from the above acts of CSO that without the previous sanction of the Bank, he engages himself in trade or business activity
and indulges in some business relation with some constituents of the Bank/Branch or might have borrowed.-Not provedâ€.
In terms of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, based on his findings to the 8 (eight) allegations, Charge Nos. 1 & 3 were found to be not proved
while Charge No. 2 was found to be proved.
Charge No. 2, which pertains to Regulation 3(1) of the 1976 Regulations, provides that an officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps
to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is
unbecoming of a bank officer.
In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner had deposited approximately Rs. 66 Lakhs into his Bank account. Further, the Enquiry
Officer had come to a finding that the deposits made by the petitioner did not match his known source of income. On the other hand, the petitioner has
given his explanation as to how the deposits were made. There is nothing to show that the petitioner did not ensure and protect the interest of the
Bank or that he did not discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. The only thing that needs to be considered is as to
whether the petitioner did something which was unbecoming of a bank officer.
In respect of allegation No. 6, i.e., that the petitioner’s transaction did not match his known source of income, it was also the finding of the Enquiry
Officer that the petitioner had failed to establish the known source of income of such deposits. It is in this context that the issue would have to be
looked into.
Though the petitioner’s counsel has submitted that Charge No. 2 cannot be proved unilaterally without proving either Charge Nos. 1 or 3, on
the ground that the Charge Nos. 1 to 3 are interconnected, a reading of Regulation No. 24 of the 1976 Regulations shows that a breach of each of the
provisions of the 1976 Regulations is deemed to be a misconduct. Thus each regulation is independent of each other. Regulation No. 24 of the 1976
Regulations states as follows:-
“24. A breach of any of the provisions of these regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the United
Commercial Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976â€.
The only issue to be decided is whether the petitioner is guilty with respect to Charge No. 2, which pertains to Regulation 3 (1) of the 1976
Regulations. A perusal of the above Regulation 3 (1) states that the employee is to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the
bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. As stated
earlier, there is nothing to show that the petitioner did not ensure and/or protect the interests of the bank or that he did not discharge his duties with
utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. The findings of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner had failed to establish his known source of
income and that it was beyond his known source of income, cannot in the view of this Court, come within the ambit of Regulation 3 (1) of the 1976
Regulations, especially when there is nothing to show that the petitioner has not ensured or protected the interest of the bank or did not discharge his
duties as a bank officer utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and done anything which was unbecoming of a bank officer. The
petitioner’s explanation for the money deposits have not been considered at all by the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority, to have enabled
them to come to any finding/decision. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that there cannot be a finding of
misconduct against the petitioner in respect of Regulation 3 (1) of the 1976 Regulations as Regulation 3 (1) has to be considered in the light of whether
the employee has been ensuring/ protecting the interest of the bank and discharging his duties in relation to the above. Accordingly, this Court is of the
view that the finding of the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to the effect that Charge No. 2 was found to be proved against the petitioner has
led to manifest injustice.
In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned Order dated 30.09.2015 is hereby set aside. All consequential benefits should be granted to the
petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.