Sh. Sita Ram vs Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.

“PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS :

1.

That the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble High Court with clean hands and has not given the correct and complete facts while filing the present Writ Petition.

2.

That the order against the petitioner was passed on 30.3.2013 the petitioner had preferred the Appeal on 11.9.2013 much after the expiry of period of limitation. Since the appeal was received after expiry of the 45 days stipulated period the appeal was not admitted and the order of rejection on account of delay was communicated to the petitioner on 19.11.2013. The petitioner thereafter, after lapse of almost 2 Years and response to his legal notice had preferred another appeal against the order dated 30.03.2013 again on 16.11.2015 which had been again declined on 30.11.2015 intimating the said fact that the earlier appeal had also been declined on the ground of delay vide order dated 19.11.2013 and the same which had been again been submitted on 16.11.2015 was returned as the same was not maintainable. The petitioner infact was not diligent in following up his matter and the appeals were filed without any basis after the period of limitation and had been rightly declined. The appeal preferred before the Chairman and Managing director had also been declined as having been preferred after three years from the date of original order.

3.

That the matter against the petitioner was also serious in nature and had been inquired into. Infact a fraud of unauthorized debits put through in various accounts of customers by one Mr. Harmeet Singh Clerk of Brown Road Ludhiana came to light when one customer had disputed certain debit transactions in her account. The fraud perpetrated on the respondent bank involved an aggregate amount of Rs.88.07 lacs in 33 accounts without vouchers in some cases. Mr. Harmeet Singh had posted most of these transactions in the system and they had been passed by various officers and SCAs and Mr. Harmeet Singh had withdrawn these amounts fraudulently in cash in some cases and also through transfer, clearing and ECS. The petitioner during his tenure as Chief Manager, had failed to ensure that the job rotation was carried out among both supervisory and award staff for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 and this lapse on the part of the petitioner had enabled Mr. Harmeet Singh to defraud the bank.

4.

That the fraud was reported by the Respondent bank to Reserve Bank of India as per extent guidelines on 18.10.2010. Reserve Bank of India vide their letter DBS (Che) Frd./1430/03.02.20/2010-11 dated 9.11.2010 had advised the bank to fix staff accountability for the lapses. After a detailed investigation the matter was placed before the Internal Investigation Committee of the bank for deciding the Vigilance or Non Vigilance Angle against the respective staff members for the lapses committed by them in the matter. The Internal Advisory Committee had treated the matter under Vigilance Angle against Mr. Harmeet Singh Clerk and under Non Vigilance angle against 19 others including the petitioner.

5.

That since one of the staff members of the respondent bank involved in the fraud was an Assistant General Manager and as per extent guidelines of Central Vigilance Commission when any of the officer involved in the fraud is in the rank of Assistant General Manager and above the departmental proceedings against all the staff members involved shall be treated as a single composite case and the matter as a whole is to be referred to Central Vigilance Commission for first stage advice in respect of 20 members against whom lapses were observed by Investing officer.

6.

That however, since the petitioner was reaching the age of superannuation as on 31.5.2011, the petitioner was served with Memorandum of Allegations and Articles of Charge dated 6.5.2011 for having committed the following lapses:

1)

Had failed to ensure that the systems and procedures / bank's guidelines were followed strictly by the staff members working under him in as much as:

i)

Had not ensured that the passwords were not shared between the staff members and the staff members had maintained secrecy of the passwords as per the guidelines given

ii) Had not ensured that SB / CDCC supplements were checked with vouchers by the officials concerned as per instructions contained in Para 12 Chapter 1 Volume 1 of Book of Instructions.

2)

Had not adhered to the instructions contained in CO Circular No.Misc / 275/2005-06 dated 28.2.2006 with regard to job rotation to all staff of the branch.

7.

Based on the complaint lodged by the Respondent bank an FIR is lodged in the matter against Mr. Harmeet Singh.

8.

That thereafter, the first Stage advise of the Central Vigilance Commission was sought for initiating departmental proceedings against all the erring staff members was sought by the chief Vigilance Officer of the bank vide his letter dated 9.12.2011. Central Vigilance Commission vide its letter dated 3.8.2012 had accorded its first stage advise as under:

"Considering the nature / gravity of lapses committed in this case which are serious in nature the commission in agreement with the recommendations of DA / CVO would advise initiation of Major Penalty Proceedings against Mr. Sri Harmeet Singh Clerk and 18 others officials except Sri B. S. Bhupal AGM (Retired) for whom minor penalty proceedings are called for."

9.

That immediately on receipt of the first stage advise of Central Vigilance Commission the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner were started by the respondent bank by conducting preliminary hearing on 27.11.2012. During the course of Preliminary hearing copies of all documents along with list of documents and witnesses was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner duly participated in the Preliminary hearing and took copies of all documents.

10.

That the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner were conducted on 27.11:2012, 29.11.2012 and the Petitioner had duly participated in the enquiry proceedings along with his Defence Representative. The Defence Representative had duly cross examined the Management Witness during the course of enquiry proceedings and the petitioner had also given his personal submissions at the end of the enquiry highlighting his past performance he requested for dropping all the charges levelled against him. The Inquiring Authority had submitted his findings to the effect that the Articles of Charge No.1 (i) as not proved and all other Charges viz., Charge No. 1(ii) and Articles of Charge No.2 are proved.

11.

That thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority after considering the entire record and the submissions of the petitioner on the findings of the Inquiring Authority had passed speaking order dated 30.3.2013 imposing a penalty of “Reduction of basic pay by one stage in the time scale of pay on the day of retirement with cumulative effect” in terms of Regulation 4 (f) of Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976 as amended upto date.

12.

That the petitioner had failed to challenge the said orders within the period of limitation and the appeal of the petitioner had been declined on the ground of delay as stated supra. That thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 30.4.2015 demanding interest for delayed payment of arrears of Gratuity, Leave encashment and commutation of pension. The said legal notice was duly replied by the respondent through their counsel vide reply notice dated 25.6.2015 clarifying and responding to the petitioner that the petitioner is claiming interest 2 years after the date of incident and that 20 staff members including the petitioner were involved, the enquiry naturally took time. The matter is governed by the Statutory regulations and secondly that the petitioner is found guilty of charges, and accordingly regretted to comply with the petitioners claim for interest. The petitioner had submitted another appeal dated 16.11.2015 praying for condoning the delay in filing appeal. The same was duly replied drawing the petitioners attention to his earlier Appeal and reply sent for the same. Another Appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the Chairman & Managing Director which was also duly rejected as 3 years had elapsed from the date of original order. Thus, the petitioner claim is stale and is only trying to keep his claim alive from time to time by making a fresh appeal.”