Chittesh Dasgupta vs Union Of India And Ors

Akil Kureshi, CJ

This appeal has been filed by the original petitioner challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2015 passed in WP(C) no.51 of 2012.

Petitioner was Scale-II officer of United Bank of India. While on duty, he was served with a departmental charge-sheet dated 09.01.2009 alleging serious irregularities on his part of withdrawal of substantial amount from his Over Draft account maintained with the bank. He denied the charges upon which departmental inquiry was carried out. Inquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. Report of the Inquiry Officer was provided to the petitioner. Disciplinary Authority after taking into account the representation of the petitioner concurred with the views of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner challenged the order of penalty before the appellate authority. The appeal was dismissed upon which the petitioner filed the writ petition which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct. At best the petitioner had withdrawn certain amount from his Over Draft account of the bank. The bank was authorized to charge interest at the prescribed rates. No punishment could have been imposed.

The counsel for the bank opposed the appeal contending that it was established through departmental inquiry that the petitioner had committed grave misconduct. The learned Single Judge has examined all aspects of the matter before dismissing the petition. This is not a case of no evidence.

Documents on record would show that in the departmental proceeding following allegations were levelled against the petitioner:

(a) Tripura R.O. vide memo Nos.TRO/ADM/6919/2008 dated 14.02.08 and TRO/ADM/6921/2008 dated 14.02.08 had sanctioned Rs.900/- and Rs.2193/- against TA/TE Bill submitted by you. Out of the said sanctioned amount (Rs.3093/- in aggregate), you were eligible to get credit of Rs.1293/- only after adjustment of Temporary Advance of Rs.1800/-. However, on 27.02.08, instead of crediting the said Rs.1293/-, you had posted and authorized credit entry of Rs.1,01,293/- in your OD account No.340016 with user-Id 'MGR'. Subsequently, with the aforesaid excess credit of Rs.1.00 lacs in his OD A/c No.340016 you had withdrawn Rs.1.05 lacs on 01.03.08 vide cheque No.201210. His such act tantamount to misappropriation of Bank's fund.

(b) To cover up the aforesaid fraudulent transaction, you deliberately suppressed the discrepancy of Rs.1.00 lac between the Over Draft ledger balance and Overdraft Sub-head in G.L. while undertaking day-end process on 27.02.08.

(a) On 06.02.08, you had withdrawn Rs.5000/- in cash vide cheque No.201207 from your OD account No.340016 without debiting your said OD account.

(b) Further, on 06.02.08, a credit entry of Rs.55,000/- was posted & authorized by you in your OD account No.340016 by using user-id 'MGR' without raising any corresponding voucher. The above fictitious credit entry of Rs.55000/- was done with an intention to clear two cheques vide Nos. 201204 and 201205 on 19.02.2008 for Rs.39094/- and Rs.31113/- respectively both drawn in favour of LICI since the outstanding balance in his OD account was not sufficient to honour the aforesaid cheques.

(c) Day end process on 06.02.08 was also done by you suppressing the aforesaid discrepancy of Rs.60,000/- between the OD ledger balance and Overdraft Sub-head in G.L. (d) Being Manager (Op) of the Branch, you had failed to ensure daily checking of vouchers, Access Log, Manual Journal, Exceptional Transaction log in the Branch.

Being Manager (Op) of the branch, you failed to maintain Pass Word Register. You were using generic user-Id 'MGR' in the branch, which had been strictly prohibited in terms of Bank's circular No.VIG/PC/8/OM-0211/06-07 dated 13.07.2006.

You had submitted false Balance Reconciliation certificate for the month of January, 8 and February, 08 to the Regional Office despite the fact that OD account was unreconciled during the said period.

Thus you had misappropriated the bank's fund for your personal gains & purpose and exposed the Bank to reputational risk".

The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 11.06.2009 copy of which was provided to the petitioner calling upon him to make representation which he had made. After considering such materials, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of compulsory retirement making following observations:

"1(a) It is observed from ME 23 (MEMO No.TRO/ADM/6919/2008 dated 14.02.2008 and TRO/ADM/6921/2008 dated 14.02.2008) that vide the said sanction, the Dy. Regional Manager, Tripura Regional Office had sanctioned amounts of Rs.900/- and Rs.2193/- respectively against the TA Bills submitted by you. It is observed from ME 27 (credit voucher dated 27.02.2008) that the said voucher was prepared for Rs.1293/ for credit to your O.D. account No.340016 after adjusting the temporary advance of Rs.1800/- out of the total payable amount of Rs.3093/. It is observed from ME 17 (statement of account of your O.D. account No.340016) that on 27.02.2008 (year wrongly mentioned 5708) an amount of Rs.101293/- has been credited to your said O.D. account. It is observed from page 104 of ME 13 (transaction log for 27.02.2008) that the G.L. head of O.D. account was credited by Rs.1293. It is found from ME 14 (certificate dated 29.11.2008 of the Branch Manager) that you had checked and signed the Daily Rough Cash Book, Sub-Cash Book, Clean Cash Book of the Branch. It is found that the said transaction was put through under the operator as well as supervisor ID of 'MGR'. It is observed from the Enquiry Officer's report that you in your deposition have confirmed having withdrawn Rs.1,05,000/- from his O.D. account on 01.03.2008.

It is observed from ME 8 (self Cheque No. 201207 dated 06.02.2008) that you had withdrawn the amount of Rs.5,000/- from O.D account No.340016; whereas it is found from ME 17 (statement of account) that there has not been any debit of Rs.5,000/- on 06.02.2008 from your O.D. account.

It is found from ME 17 that the same shows the credit of Rs.55,000/- in your O.D. account No.340016 on 06.02.2008 by cash. However, ME 6 (Cash Receipt Register) does not reveal receipt of any cash to the tune of Rs.55,000/- for credit to your said O.D. account. It is found that MEs 7 (Cheque No.201204 for Rs.30994/- dated 21.01.2008 and cheque No.201205 for Rs.31113/- dated 29.01.2008, both drawn in favour of LICI) were passed for payment from your said O.D. account No.340016 on 19.02.2008. It is observed that before credit of the said amount of Rs.55,000/- on 06.02.2008, the balance in the account stood at Rs.339854.35 as on 02.02.2008 against the permitted limit of Rs.3,50,000/-. Thus, had the disputed amount of Rs.55,000/- not been credited to your O.D. account on 06.02.2008, the payment of the aforementioned two cheques favouring LICI would have exceeded the permitted limit of Rs.3.50 lac. It is found from the enquiry report that the said cheques were passed for payment by you. It is also found from ME 14 that the checking of Subcash Book, Rough Cash Book, Clean Cash Book and General Ledger was done by you only. It is observed from ME 16 (position of balances of accounts of Teliamura Branch for the month of February, 2008) that the said fictitious entries did not get reflected in the balance reconciliation statement submitted by you to the Regional Office. I observe that you in your submission have tried to take resort to the fact that since the aforesaid fictitious transactions were put through in the system by using Generic User ID 'MGR' you cannot be made responsible for such entries. In my opinion the fictitious entries had benefited you only and you were the Officer who had checked the SubCash Book, Rough Cash Book, Clean Cash Book and General Ledger of the Branch on 06.02.2008. Again going by the concept on preponderance of probability, I hold you guilty of having put through the said fictitious transactions."

Perusal of such materials would show that the petitioner was facing serious charges of irregularities in operating his Over Draft account maintained with the bank. He was not a mere customer of the bank but an officer of rank itself. In his official capacity he had carried out such transactions in connection with the said account which were wholly irregular. As an employee of the bank he was expected to discharge his duties with outmost integrity and devotion. Financial irregularities by bank employees are always viewed seriously. The petitioner has not made out any ground of breach of principles of natural justice in conducting the inquiry. His contention that he had not committed any misconduct cannot be accepted in view of the materials on record noted above. Ordinarily High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not examine the correctness of the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority unless and until such findings are shown to be perverse and supported by no evidence which is not the case in the present petition. The learned Single Judge having examined all such aspects, scope of writ appeal is further narrow. We do not find the learned Single Judge committed any error.

Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.