AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure-P/1) and the order of Appellate Authority dated 13.06.2012 (Annexure-P/2).
2 . It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as a Cashier in the respondent bank and was subjected to a charge-sheet dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure-P/3), whereby it was alleged that the petitioner had received amounts from customers but had not deposited them in their respective accounts. There are 10 incidences mentioned in the charge-sheet in respect of nine different customers. The petitioner was directed to submit the reply. The petitioner could not file reply, because of ailment. The petitioner was given opportunities to file the reply on 06.02.2012, 07.02.2012, and 02.03.2012; however, no reply was filed, and applications were repeatedly submitted on the ground of ailment. The final letter was issued on 27.12.2012, directing the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing or else file a reply by 02.03.2012. However, the petitioner could not file reply. After considering the charges and the record of the bank, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was involved in misappropriating the amounts deposited by the respective customers and upon complaints being made, the same were deposited in the bank. Accordingly, the petitioner was discharged from service with superannuation benefits, i.e., pension, provident fund, and gratuity, without disqualification from future employment.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given due opportunity of hearing, including the opportunity to cross-examine the customers whose funds were allegedly misused by the petitioner by not depositing the amounts in their respective accounts. It is submitted that, as the amount has already been deposited, though at a later stage, the penalty that has been inflicted is disproportionate. It is, therefore, prayed that the orders dated 06.03.2012 and 13.06.2012 be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, despite several opportunities having been given to the petitioner, the petitioner neither filed a reply nor remained present before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, considering the material available on record as well as the charges levelled against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer passed the order of punishment discharging the petitioner from service with superannuation benefits, taking into consideration that the petitioner should not be deprived of the monetary benefits. It is, therefore, submitted that the punishment is absolutely proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure-P/1) and the Appellate Authority dated 13.06.2012 (Annexure-P/2), it is found that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure-P/3), wherein it was alleged that the petitioner did not deposit the amounts received from the customers in their respective accounts and misused the same. It is also alleged that, after complaints were made, the amounts were deposited in the respective accounts, but only after a lapse of over five months. In the charge-sheet, about nine incidences relating to different customers have been mentioned. It is found that, though the petitioner was given several opportunities of hearing, the petitioner deliberately did not file any reply and, time and again, sought time to file the reply.
The petitioner was finally given time to appear in person for a personal hearing as well as to submit a detailed reply, but the same was not done by the petitioner. Therefore, the disciplinary authority, considering the charges and the record made available from the bank records, found that the petitioner had committed misconduct by misusing the funds of the customers and not depositing the same in their respective accounts. The petitioner could not bring any substantial evidence either before the disciplinary authority or before this Court in the writ petition to substantiate that such amounts were deposited in time and not after complaints were made i.e. after five months, as narrated in the charge-sheet.
The only legal ground that has been raised is that the punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.
From perusal of the charges, it is found that the charge of misusing the funds of the customers shows doubtful integrity of the person who has been entrusted with the responsibility of handling the funds of the customers of the bank. If an employee is left with the discretion not to deposit the amounts for a certain period and, thereafter, upon a complaint being made, the same are deposited, then it cannot be said that he has not misused the seat and the position which has been entrusted to him.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has committed misconduct, which has been dealt with proportionately, and the services of the petitioner have been discharged. Taking into consideration the future of the petitioner, the benefits of superannuation, i.e., monetary benefits, have been extended.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surekha Domali Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109, wherein, in paragraph No. 106, it has been held as under:-
106.Dismissal from service is the severest form of penalty which can be inflicted on a delinquent employee in service jurisprudence. It brings the relationship of employer and employee to an end permanently, and ordinarily deprives the employee of the incidents of past service, including retiral benefits. It does not lead merely to the loss of the existing source of income for the employee but also for the dependent family members. Thus, it will have a devastating effect not only on the dismissed employee but also on all those who are dependant on the employee. Because of the severity of its impact not only on the employee but also to his dependents, the disciplinary authority must be very careful in seeking to impose the severest form of punishment of dismissal.
It further carries consequences beyond immediate cessation of employment. It leaves a permanent stigma on the service record of the employee concerned, and may impair future employment prospects, particularly in public employment, statutory bodies, public sector undertakings and other regulated establishments where antecedents and service record are material. For this reason, dismissal must remain reserved for cases where the misconduct is of the most serious nature where elements of synthetic consideration would be undesirable and inappropriate."
He further submits that the case of the petitioner is similar and that the discharge from service has serious consequences, as it deprives not only the petitioner but also his dependants of monetary benefits, which has a devastating effect. Therefore, such action was not warranted.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. and Others Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, (2006)2 SCC 373 in paragraph nos.10 and 11 has held as under:-
"10.From the finding recorded by the High Court it clearly appears that the High Court re-appreciated the evidence as an Appellate Authority. Apart from re-appreciating the evidence, which is not permissible in law, the High Court also fell in grave error by directing the Govt. Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent herein to again view the cassettes. It is on record that the Inquiry Officer relied on the video cassettes displayed during the Inquiry as part of additional evidence. The finding has been clearly recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced by PWs. 1,2,3 and 4 during the Inquiry.
11.By now it is a well-established principle of law that the High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority."
This Court, in respectful agreement with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surekha Domaji Bele (Supra) and Govt. of A.P. (Supra), finds that the petitioner was involved in the misconduct of misusing his position by using the funds deposited by the customers, which demonstrates a breach of trust reposed in him and undermines the institution. If such a person is allowed to continue, the public at large would lose faith in the banking institution. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has committed misconduct which is grave in nature. However, as the authorities have taken care of the future prospects of the petitioner by extending the benefits of superannuation, i.e., monetary benefits, and without disqualification from future employment, the order is found to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.