Chandrapal Singh vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Allahabad Bank and Others

Rajan Roy, J—Heard Mr. Vijai Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.6.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service, as also the appellate order dated 20.12.2014 rejecting his appeal against the said order.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner who is the erstwhile Manager, Naka Branch of Allahabad Bank, was convicted by the Special Judge (CBI) Court No. 1, Lucknow vide judgment dated 14.8.2012. in Criminal Case No. 4/2004, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 6 months as also rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 15000/- in default simple imprisonment for one year under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Based on the aforesaid conviction the disciplinary authority issued an office memorandum dated 14.2.2013 to the petitioner under Regulation 11 of the Allahabad Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 read with Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, read with Regulation 4(j) of the Regulations, 1976, calling upon him to submit his representation on the proposed penalty within 10 days to which the petitioner submitted his reply. After analyzing the reply of the petitioner the impugned order dated 19.6.2013 was passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service. Thereafter an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which has also been rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 20.12.2014 giving cogent reasons based on the provisions of the Rules 1976, Banking Regulation Act, 1949, certain decisions of the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, (2010) 127 FLR 16 : (2010) 8 JT 233 : (2010) 4 LLJ 297 : (2010) 8 SCC 573 : (2010) 9 SCR 796 : (2010) 5 SLR 352 . Being aggrieved this writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the disciplinary/appellate authority have not considered the conduct of the petitioner leading to his conviction and have passed the order on the premise as if such conviction automatically entailed dismissal from service which was contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Tulsiram Patel and Others, AIR 1985 SC 1416 : (1985) 3 CompLJ 45 : (1985) 51 FLR 362 : (1985) 2 LLJ 206 : (1985) 2 SCALE 133 : (1985) 3 SCC 398 : (1985) 2 SCR 131 Supp : (1985) 2 SLJ 145 .

The learned counsel for the Bank on the other hand submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error as they have been passed in terms of the relevant provisions in the Rules as well as the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera, AIR 1995 SC 1364 : (1995) 3 JT 32 : (1995) 2 SCALE 1 : (1995) 3 SCC 377 : (1995) 2 SCR 308 and Southern Railway Officers Assn. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2010 SC 1241 : (2009) 123 FLR 417 : (2009) 15 JT 148 : (2009) 4 LLJ 1 : (2009) 11 SCALE 263 : (2009) 9 SCC 24 : (2009) 2 SCC(L&S) 552 : (2009) 13 SCR 429 : (2009) 8 SLR 532 : (2009) 8 UJ 3877 : (2010) AIRSCW 548 , holding that a convicted bank employee cannot be allowed to continue in service.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records we are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. In the impugned order it is clearly mentioned that the said order was being passed after "carefully considering the ground of conduct of Sri Chandrapal Singh which led to his conviction". Based thereon the disciplinary authority formed the opinion that the circumstances of the case warranted imposition of penalty of dismissal from service. It is also relevant to refer a recent decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 459 (SB) of 2015 Manoj Kumar v. Union of India and others, decided on 9.4.2015, wherein considering the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 25.3.2015 rendered in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 219 of 2015 State of U.P. v. Prem Milan Tiwari, the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras v. S. Nagoor Meera (supra), and the case of Govt. of A.P. and Another Vs. B. Jagjeevan Rao, (2014) 7 SCALE 434 : (2014) 3 SCT 323 , as well as Union of India and another v. Tulsi Ram Patel (supra) were considered and following the said judgments, especially S. Nagoor Meera''s case (supra) it was observed that "Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law and keeping in view the expected standard of administration, conviction on the charge of corruption has to be viewed seriously and unless the conviction is annulled, an employer cannot be compelled to take an employee back in service." the Court declined to interfere during subsistence of conviction. In our view in the impugned order the disciplinary authority has not only considered the conduct of the petitioner which has led to his conviction based on the provisions of criminal law under which he has been convicted for indulging in corruption, but it is also difficult to fathom that any other view of the matter could have been taken by the disciplinary authority in the facts of the present case considering the seriousness of the criminal offence for which the petitioner has been convicted. We may also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Jagdish Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1577 : (1998) 80 FLR 888 : (1998) 7 JT 388 : (1999) 1 LLJ 945 : (1998) 9 SCC 265 : (1998) SCC(L&S) 1180 : (1998) AIRSCW 4067 , wherein in a matter of suspension the Supreme Court observed that it would be unsuitable that a Bank should allow an employee to continue on duty when he is facing serious charges of corruption and misappropriation of the money. Accordingly it quashed the judgment of the High Court quashing the order of suspension of an employee of Allahabad Bank. In the case at hand the petitioner has already been convicted on charges of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, he is not entitled to continue in service unless the conviction is set aside in the appeal filed by him against the same.

We have also perused the relevant rules which permit dismissal from service in such circumstances and we do not find any violation of the rules or the law in the present case. In these circumstances we do not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently relief No. 2 prayed in the writ petition also cannot be granted by this Court at this stage. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.