Mohd. Aazam vs Punjab National Bank & Anr

Lok Pal Singh, J

This Writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and order dated 02.05.2015 passed by the respondent no.1 (annexure no.2 to the writ petition).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the entire arrears and salary to the petitioner from the date of suspension.

Facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Mangalore town, District Haridwar, vide appointment letter dated 31.03.2015. By order dated 02.05.2015, which is under challenge, petitioner Mohd. Azam was placed under suspension with immediate effect under the provisions of Bipartite Settlement. In the order, the reason shown for suspension is that the petitioner is responsible to serious lapse in the theft of cash amounting to Rs.42,000/- from the branch on 23.04.2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat; he was not allowed to enter into the cash section or record room; after the closing of the bank the key remains with head cashier and Branch Manager and the petitioner has nothing to do with the management of the bank. He would further contend that the petitioner was coercively pressed to admit the mistake and to give statement in writing to the bank. It is also contended that before passing of the impugned order, no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the respondent Bank.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-Bank wherein it is inter-alia stated as follows:-

"11. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No.12 of the writ petition, it is a part of staff side action proceedings taken against the staff who is alleged to be involved in lapses/irregularities (theft in this case). Serving of tabular proforma is an action of giving an opportunity to the individual who is alleged to be involved in lapses/irregularities (theft in this case) so that he may put forward his justification/explanation to commit such theft and further action is being decided thereafter. Though instead of giving a justification the petitioner falsely stated that he did not commit the said theft which has been clearly accepted by him in the letter dt. 24.04.2015.

That the contents of paragraph No.13 of the writ petition as stated are totally false and not admitted. In terms of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 governing the service conditions of workmen employees, Disciplinary Authority is not bound to institute a preliminary enquiry before placing a workmen employee under suspension. In terms of HRDD Circular Letter No.2/2006 dated 24.11.2006, the disciplinary authority may suspend the employee "Where the continuance in the office of the employee is likely to subvert the discipline in the office in which he is working". An employee may also be placed under suspension only in respect of misdemeanor such as corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of bank's money, misuse of office powers for personal gains. However, vide the order of suspension dated 02.05.2015 it was duly informed to the petitioner that he has been placed under suspension pending departmental proceedings against him for his alleged involvement in theft of cash amounting to Rs.42,000/-

That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.14 of the writ petition because the petitioner had confessed his fault on the very next day i.e. on 24.04.2015 in front of the branch staff and gave his admission in writing witnesses by two employees of the branch. Moreover he returned the amount to the Head Cashier on the same day i.e. on 24.04.2015 who had previously adjusted the cash on 23.04.2015 from his personal account, so there was no need to lodge an FIR in the matter."

As regards the work assigned to the subordinate staff in the bank, learned counsel for the respondents-bank would draw attention of the Court to paragraph 6(b) of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:-

"(b) Duties of Subordinate Staff w.e.f. Ist May, 2010. 1- All the normal and routine duties of the subordinate staff cadre and for performance of which no special pay shall be payable. In additional they shall also be required to perform the following duties.

2- To take money orders, to buy stamps etc., which involves carrying of cash not exceeding Rs.5,000/- and to carry insured letters., etc. to post office.

3- To stitch currency note bundles.

4- To stitch and seal parcels and packets containing currency notes;

5- To transit cash from the bank to an office outside or vice versa, if unaccompanied by a watchman/Armed Guard."

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material available on record.

Undisputedly, petitioner was appointed as a Peon with the respondents-bank on 31.03.2015. Vide order dated 02.05.2015, he has been placed under suspension in contemplation of an enquiry. As regards the first submission made by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was neither assigned any type of financial work nor he was allowed to enter into the cash section or record room, the respondents by way of counter affidavit has mentioned the duties of the subordinate staff which this Court has already adverted to. Thus, the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not assigned any financial work, has no force. Insofar as the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that no preliminary enquiry was conducted before passing of the impugned order, it has come in the counter affidavit that in terms of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 governing the service conditions of workmen employees, Disciplinary Authority is not bound to institute a preliminary enquiry before placing a workmen employee under suspension. Now, the last submission that the petitioner has been scapegoat and has been forced to write a letter admitting his guilt, it appears to this Court that deliberately the petitioner has not annexed the letter, wherein he has confessed his guilt. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the petitioner has confessed his guilt on the very next day of the theft in front of the other employees of the bank and thereafter deposited the money in the bank.

In the light of aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or procedural error in the order impugned. Writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Interim order dated 20.08.2015 stands vacated.