AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—The petitioner, while he was working as Special Assistant in Melpallipattu Branch was served with a charge memo dated
15.9.1992 containing five charges. An enquiry was conducted and all the five charges were held to be proved. Based on the enquiry report, a
show cause notice dated 25.1.1994 was issued to the petitioner, proposing punishment of dismissal without notice for Charge Nos.1 and 2 and
stoppage of one annual increment permanently for Charge Nos. 3 and 4 and withdrawal of special allowance permanently for Charge No. 5. After
explanation of the petitioner, by order dated 20.5.1994, the petitioner was dismissed from service without notice. The petitioner raised an industrial
dispute.
The Industrial Tribunal, by award dated 8.1.2001 in I.D. No. 92/1996 found that charge Nos. 1 and 2 are proved and the remaining Charges
are not proved. In view of proved Charge Nos. 1 and 2, the Tribunal dismissed the Industrial Dispute. Questioning the said award, the petitioner
has filed the present Writ Petition.
Mr. P. Viswanathan Kakkan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that insofar as Charge No. 1, it is true that the petitioner
after availing the loan to purchase of a two wheeler, he sold the vehicle even before hypothecation deed was entered, but such misconduct does
not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal.
Insofar as Charge No. 2 is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that except he assisted the Proprietor of Poombukar Thuniyagam, one
Mr. Kathirvelu to avail the loan to start a cut piece centre by filling up the application form, he has not committed any misconduct as alleged by the
bank and for such misconduct, again the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate.
I have heard Mr. John for M/s Ramasubramanian Associates, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
Insofar as Charge No. 1 is concerned, the Tribunal has found that the petitioner availed the loan of Rs. 18,400/- from the Bank to purchase one
two wheeler viz., TVS Susuki and the loan was sanctioned on 5.1.1990. One of the terms of sanction of the loan was that the Bank''s charge to be
registered with the Regional Transport Officer. Without doing so, the petitioner had sold the vehicle on 2.6.1990 within a period of five months.
The Tribunal also observed that on the date of sale, there was an outstanding of Rs. 15,387/- towards the loan. The petitioner did not repay the
said loan but allowed the bank to deduct the said sum from the salary only, till he repaid the amount on 4.2.1990. Thus, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the misconduct of availing the loan, without informing the bank about the sale of vehicle and then after the vehicle was sold he did
not repay the entire loan but only payment was made on instalments, has been proved. The above finding is rendered on the basis of materials and
evidence and the same cannot be interfered with while this Court exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Coming to Charge No. 2, though it is the case of the petitioner that he only filled up the application form for availing the loan on behalf of one
Kathirvelu, it is seen from the deposition of the said Kathirvelu that he did not avail the loan from the bank. The Tribunal also considered the
evidence of M.W.6 together with ME 70 to 100 and found that the petitioner had not only filled up the application form for Kathirvelu but he has
remitted the amount in the said loan account. The Tribunal coupled with the evidence of M.W.2 to M.W.6 and the documents on record held that
Charge No. 2 has also been proved.
It is the case of the petitioner that he has not availed the loan in the name of Kathirvelu but has assisted him in filling up the application form. This
submission again falls to the ground purely on the appreciation of evidence. ME 77 relates to SB account opening card of Kathirvelu dated
16.12.1989 which was filled in by the petitioner. ME.79 is the cheque dated 28.12.1989 issued by M/s Poombuhar Thuniyagam favouring Mr.
Mani for Rs. 17,000/- The cheque is filled in the handwriting of the petitioner. On the reverse of the cheque Mr. Mani has signed and the
denominations for Rs. 17,000/- has been entered and also the petitioner has initialed for having given the token. ME 84 is the Paying-in-slip of S.
Kathirvelu for Rs. 500/- which was also filled up by the petitioner. Equally, ME 82, 83, 86, 87 and 88 are paying-in-slips signed by the petitioner
on behalf of the said Kathirvelu. The Tribunal after considering those documents had come to the conclusion that the said documents established
that the petitioner has availed the loan in the name of Kathirvelu and repaid the same on his behalf. Such conclusion was arrived on the basis of
materials available on record and the same cannot be re-appreciated by this Court. Hence I do not find any perversity in the award of the Tribunal
as the finding of the Tribunal is supported by documentary evidence.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in any case, the Tribunal has imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal to the
proved charges. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in GANESH SANTA
RAM SIRUR VS STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 2004(8) Supreme 607. While considering the punishment of an employee of the
Bank, the Supreme Court has held in para 33 as follows:
The Bank Manager/Officer and employees and any Bank nationalised /or non-nationalised are expected to act and discharge their functions in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bank. Acting beyond one''s authority is by itself is a breach of discipline and Trust and a
misconduct. In the instant case Charge No. 5 framed against the appellant is very serious and grave in nature. We have already extracted the
relevant rule which prohibits the Bank Manager to sanction a loan to his wife or his relative or to any partner. While sanctioning the loan, the
appellant do not appear to have kept this aspect in mind and acted illegally and sanctioned the loan. He realised the mistake later and tried to
salvage the same by not encashing the draft issued in the maiden name of his wife though the draft was issued but not encashed. The decision to
sanction a loan is not an honest decisions. The Rule 4(3)(1) is a rule of integrity and therefore as rightly pointed out by Mr. Salve, the respondent
Bank cannot afford to have the appellant as Bank Manager. The punishment of removal awarded by the Appellate Authority is just and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case....
That was a case where a bank employee, contrary to the rules and regulations, availed the loan in his wife''s name but after realising the
mistake he did not encash the draft and closed the account and even in that case, the Supreme Court has held that the bank employees are
expected to act and discharge their functions in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bank and did not interfere the punishment imposed
by the appellate authority. In this case, both the proved Charge Nos. 1 and 2 are serious in nature. In the circumstances, the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment is disproportionate cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs.