Praveena V. vs State Bank Of India & Ors.

Basant Balaji, J.

The appellant as petitioner has filed the Writ Petition challenging Exts.P13, P17 and P19 and for a writ of mandamus to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits, by treating the period of suspension as duty for all purposes.

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. M. Sasindran, argued that the learned Single Judge erred in relying on Exts.P1 and P2, the alleged confession statements made by the appellant, for the reason that she had objected before the Enquiry Officer that they were fabricated documents and were not written in the handwriting of the appellant. Without examining the person to whom the said documents were submitted, the Enquiry Officer could not have accepted those documents and, merely relying on the said documents, could not have found her guilty of the charges alleged. Though a specific contention was raised that Exts.P1 and P2 were not written in the handwriting of the appellant, the learned Single Judge also erred in accepting the same. Reliance placed on Exts.P1 and P2 by the learned Single Judge is bad in law and, therefore, warrants interference. He further argued that the CCTV visuals which were taken as evidence against the appellant will not show that the appellant had, in fact, taken the gold packets from the strong room and that the same was kept by her in the parking lot on a subsequent date. Without any direct proof that the appellant had, in fact, taken the gold loan packet, the first charge alleged against the appellant ought to have been declared as not proved. The second charge, which is regarding the administrative clearance for receiving high-value credit from friends and relatives, is due to ignorance of the procedure to be followed by the bank. At the most, it can only be treated as a minor lapse and the punishment of discharge from service is highly disproportionate. Charge No.3, regarding the failure to obtain administrative clearance before availing a gold loan in the name of her husband, is also a minor lapse. As regards Charge No.4, though the Enquiry Officer found it only partially proved, the 4^th respondent modified the same as fully proved without giving any notice and without obtaining any explanation from the appellant, which is against the principles of natural justice and the procedure for imposing punishment under the disciplinary proceedings of the Bank. Charge No.5 is a corollary to Charge No.1.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, Sri. George Thomas Mevada, instructed by Sri. Amal George, submitted that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry after giving the appellant every opportunity to defend herself and to produce evidence. There is no violation of any principles of natural justice. The appellant participated fully in the enquiry proceedings by engaging a defence representative. Exts.P1 and P2 are the confession statements made by the appellant and addressed to the Regional Manager as well as the Investigating Officer. It is to be noted that in Ext.P2, the appellant had, in fact, put her signature on both the pages after making an endorsement to the effect that she had read and understood the same. At no point of time, either in the enquiry or later, was any allegation of coercion or undue influence raised, except for the bald statement that two blank signed papers were obtained from the appellant. If it was a case that Exts.P1 and P2 were obtained by coercion, she would have definitely approached the higher authorities with a complaint or at least the police officials. This shows that Exts.P1 and P2 were, in fact, confession statements of the appellant, and it is only as an afterthought that such contention is raised before this Court. Therefore, he prayed that the learned Single Judge had rightly considered that the enquiry and the procedure contemplated therein were done properly and had entered a finding that no interference is warranted and that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

The main crux of the allegation raised against the appellant is that she had unauthorizedly carried a high-value gold loan packet out of the branch on 30.06.2020, violating the bank’s laid-down instructions. In the enquiry, the CCTV visuals of the appellant entering the strong room were produced. The appellant does not have a case that she never entered the strong room. Her case is that she had entered the strong room to help the other officers as there was heavy rush on that day regarding gold loans. The CCTV visuals also show that she had left the strong room with her hands folded and hiding the same under her dress in a suspicious manner. The appellant admits that she had left the strong room after obtaining permission from her colleague and came back only after 10-15 minutes from the bathroom. The gold packet was found in the parking lot on 08.07.2020, after the same was found to be missing from the branch on 30.06.2020.

Exts.P1 and P2 are confession statements signed by the appellant, though the handwriting is disputed by her. The defence representative of the appellant in Ext.P12 admits that Ext.P2 was prepared by the Investigating Officer, Sri. Alwin Twinkle, himself and that the wordings were not legible and, as a result, upon the dismay and distress of that moment, the appellant had put her signature as instructed. This is contrary to the argument raised by the appellant that the signed blank papers were obtained from her. It is also to be noted that Ext.P1 is dated 13.07.2020 and Ext.P2 is dated 16.07.2020, both addressed to two different people. During the enquiry, when these documents were pressed into service, if the appellant had contention that the same were fabricated, she ought to have immediately filed a complaint before the police or any higher authority of the bank, stating that the same were obtained by undue influence or coercion. Her consistent stand is that the same is not written in her handwriting. If a document which is not written by a person is used against the said person in disciplinary proceedings, the first and foremost contention that would be taken is that the same is fabricated, and the said person would have approached the police or higher authorities as mentioned earlier. In the absence of such a stand, the appellant cannot now turn around and raise such contention. In the enquiry, the defence representative in Ext.P10 had specifically admitted that the appellant is not authorised to enter into the chest. There is no evidence forthcoming from the side of the appellant to show that she was authorised to enter into the strong room. In the absence of that, the only inference that can be taken is that she had entered the strong room without authority. It is also to be noted that in Ext.R1(b), which is a letter written by the appellant addressing the Chief Manager, she does not deny Ext.P1; rather, only Ext.P2 is denied. The presence of the appellant inside the strong room without permission and her leaving the same in suspicious circumstances, coupled with Exts.P1, P2 and Ext.R1(b), therefore supports the findings entered in the enquiry report.

The appeal as well as the revision filed by the appellant were considered by both the competent authorities. Taking note of the fact that she had confessed through Exts.P1 and P2 and that her unauthorized presence in the strong room without any authority led the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority to dismiss the appeal as well as the revision. The learned Single Judge, after evaluating the entire records, including the enquiry report and the statements recorded therein, the appeal as well as the revision petition, along with the orders of the appellate and the revisional authorities, concluded that the punishment imposed by the respondents on the appellant, i.e., discharge from service with superannuation benefits and without disqualification from future employment, does not require any interference. We have also perused the relevant records necessary and the judgments cited before us. We are of the considered opinion that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition.

In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.