AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner, now dismissed from service, had joined the services of the respondent Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Karur as a Clerk. Immediately after such appointment, she was posted to work at Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore. Taking into consideration her seniority and also good work carried out by her, petitioner was granted promotion first in the year 1991 and thereafter in the year 1992 as an Officer in the Bank.
Petitioner was serving in the respondent-Bank as an Accountant (on deputation) at Bangalore Main Branch. While working in the said Branch, she was served with a letter dated 17-2-1993 containing certain acts of omissions and commissions said to have been committed by her while working as Accountant in the City Market Branch of the respondent-Bank. By her letter dated 12-3-1993, petitioner accepts her mistakes and pleads for mercy. Competent Authorities of the respondent-Bank not being satisfied with the explanation offered had issued a charge memo dated 26-4-1993 containing charges of misconduct as an Accountant at City Market Branch of the respondent-Bank. Altogether, they alleged three charges against the petitioner. Charges are of serious in nature. Petitioner had filed a reply dated 12-5-1993 and in that she had accepted the allegations made by the Bank against her in the charge-memo. The Disciplinary Authority of the Bank had also issued an additional charge memo dated 8-12-1993 and this was also replied by her in her reply letter dated 21-12-1993. The Disciplinary Authority had appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made in the charge memo. The enquiry officer after a full-fledged enquiry, has given his findings and is of the view that the charges are established and proved beyond doubt and the petitioner is guilty of all the charges alleged in the charge memo. The enquiry officer submitted his report together with the records of the enquiry proceedings and other documents to the Disciplinary Authority.
The Disciplinary Authority after scrutinising the records, evidence both documentary and oral and being of the view that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the Service Regulations of the Bank, has proceeded to impose penalty of dismissal, dismissing the petitioner from the services of the Bank by his order dated 15-5-1995. Aggrieved, by the said order, petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who by his order dated 26-10-1995 has rejected the appeal and has confirmed the orders made by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, petitioner has iiJed a review petition before the Review Authority. Even this Review Petition is rejected by the Reviewing Authority. It is these orders, which are called in question by the petitioner before this Court, being aggrieved by the same.
The charge memo is dated 26-4-1993. In that, following charges are alleged against the petitioner:
CHARGE-SHEET
It is reported against you as under:
That you have been functioning as Accountant of our City Market Bangalore branch since 29-9-1992. That while functioning so, Cheque No. 156316, dated 1-1-1993 for Rs. 1,500/- issued in favour of Mr. Saijjan Rao by you was sent for collection by our Bangalore Main Branch under OBC along with an another OBC for Rs. 380/-in the same collection schedule and consciously failed to enter the cheques in the Inward Bills Register. That the OBCs were kept by you in your possession without the knowledge of the officials of the branch with an ulterior intention. That on 11-1-1993 you sent the realisation advice to Bangalore Main Branch without however debiting the cheques in the concerned ledger folio on the said date. That only on 12-1-1993 you entered the particulars and debited the cheques in the corresponding books of the Bank.
Charge No. 1
By retaining the OBCs in your possession without the knowledge of the other officials of the branch and sending the advice without making corresponding debit entries in the relevant records of the Bank, you concealed the material facts with a dishonest intention and thereby gained undue pecuniary advantage for you. By doing so you have failed to discharge your duties with diligence, devotion, integrity and honesty. You have therefore acted in violation of Regulation 5(1) of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Officers'' Discipline and Disciplinary Action Regulations, 1987.
That also you issued the following cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in your account.
Sl. No.
Cheque No.
Date
Amount Rs.
1.
156317
30-1-1993
1,500/-
2.
021033
31-1-1993
500/-
3.
368980
3-2-1993
500/-
4.
368652
25-2-1993
2,000/-
5.
156320
1-3-1993
1,500/-
That all the above cheques were returned unpaid for want of sufficient balance in your SB Account.
Charge No. II
By doing as above you have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and thereby committed a gross misconduct vide Regulation 17(d) of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Officers'' Discipline and Disciplinary Action Regulations, 1987.
That on account of the above instances, the cheque book facility extended to you was withdrawn by the Bank and you were specifically restrained from operating your account through cheque book. That in order to overcome this impediment with an oblique design you stealthily managed to remove a cheque leaf from the unused cheque book surrendered in respect of SB Account No. 1401 of Minor. Sikka Bhandar which was kept in the safe custody of the City Market Branch sequel to the closure of the Account on 13-2-1992. That in the meanwhile you were sent on deputation to our Bangalore Main Branch. That during the said period of deputation, you issued the aforesaid Cheque No. 082075, dated 1-3-1993 for Rs. 1,000/- in favour of Sri C. Chohaiah. That thereupon the cheque returned unpaid.
Charge No. III
In the above transaction abusing your official position you managed to remove the unused cheque leaf from the cheque book pertaining to a closed SB Account which was kept under the safe custody of the branch with a mala fide intention of using the same for your self-gain. You have therefore acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Institution. Hence you have committed a gross misconduct of doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank vide Regulation 17(d) of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Officers'' Discipline and Disciplinary Action Regulations, 1987.
You are therefore advised to submit your written statement of defence within 15 days of receipt of this charge-sheet".
While replying to the charge-memo, petitioner by her reply dated 12-5-1993, admits the allegations made in the charge-memo. The reply filed by the petitioner dated 12-5-1993 is as under:
"From Smt. Usha Satish, Accountant, Staff No. 1005, City Market, Bangalore-2.
To Mr. N. Giridharan, Assistant General Manager, Personnel Department, Karur.
Respected Sir,
Ref: Your Ref. No. CGS (o) 3/93, 569/93-94, dated 26-4-1993.
I regret very much for the mistake done by as mentioned in your charge sheet. As I did not have good understanding with my husband. I was forced to do commitments for the house hold purpose. Due to the pressure of circumstances, I did these mistakes even though I don''t wanted to do the same.
Any how my brothers have assured to help me in future to clear my outstanding commitments.
I once again apologise for the lapses and try to avoid such things in future.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
USHA SATISH".
The Disciplinary Authority had issued additional charge-sheet dated 8-12-1993 and in that the following charges were alleged against the petitioner. They are as under:
"Additional Charge-Sheet
It is reported against you as under:
That since, by issuing cheques indiscriminately to third parties without maintaining sufficient balance in your account you have abused your official position, the cheque book facility has been withdrawn by the Bank. That despite this, you have taken unauthorisedly a cheque book containing 10 leaves from numbers 147981 to 147990 on 6-10-1993, without the knowledge of any of the officers of the Branch. That out of the cheque book, you have issued a Cheque No. 147982 for Rs. 3,000/- to Mr. M. Dhanaraj. That you have also admitted, having taken a cheque book unauthorisedly vide your letter dated 19-10-1993.
Charge No. 1:
By acting in violation of lawful and reasonable instructions of your superior, you have committed a gross misconduct under para 17(b) of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Officers'' Discipline and Disciplinary Action Regulations, 1987.
Charge No. 2:
By stealthily removing the cheque book from the Branch, you have failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity and honesty. You have therefore, acted in violation of Regulation 5(1) of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Officers'' Discipline and Disciplinary Action Regulations, 1987.
You are therefore, advised to submit your written statement of defence within 15 days of receipt of this charge sheet".
Even to this charge memo, petitioner had filed her reply by her reply letter dated 21-12-1993. In that she states as under:
"From Smt. Usha Satish, Accountant, Staff No. 1005, City Market, Bangalore-2.
To The Disciplinary Authority, The Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Personnel Department, A.O. Karur.
Respected Sir,
Ref: CGS(o) 17/93/569/93-94, dated 8-12-1993.
To clear my commitments my mother has decided to dispose of her own site at Bangalore and help me out unfortunately, Karnataka Government has stopped the registration of the sites from May, 1993. Unavoidable to manage the debtors. I did the above mistake, I regret very much for the same.
I apologise this misconduct and see that I will not report the same in future.
Kindly excuse me for the same.
Thanking you".
The enquiry officer relying on the admission of fact and the guilt by the petitioner and also basing on the documentary and oral evidence available on record, has proceeded to give his findings to the effect that petitioner is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge memo.
The Disciplinary Authority after carefully scrutinising the records of the enquiry proceedings and being satisfied that the enquiry proceedings were held in accordance with regulation of the Bank and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and after concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer has imposed a major penalty.
Sri Satish Doddamani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends before this Court that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is not in commensuration with the charges alleged and proved against the petitioner. Therefore, requests this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and modify the impugned punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by awarding lesser punishment. This is the only submission made by the learned Counsel in support of the relief sought in the writ petition. In my opinion, it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Poverty breeds frustration, ill feeling and brooding sense of injustice, occasionally erupting into the lawlessness and violence but there is a distinct contrast between the outlook of the poor in India and poor in other countries. Indian poor have richness in their poverty. The strength of our people enables them to be dignified and hold their heads high despite adversity because of age-old traditions and spiritual values. These high values of Indian poor is not in the blood of this delinquent officer. What a pity. To cover up all her mischiefs and misdeeds she wants to make use of poverty as an umbrella, which can absorb and assimilate all the heat generated by her misadventures.
The corrupt has no caste, creed or religion. One who protects corruption, helps and protects a corrupt person, in a way stamped as a corrupt. Keeping this high tradition that a common man believes in this country, let me briefly notice the fact situation.
Here is an officer of a Financial Institution, who retains OBC 12576, dated 5-1-1993 and sends the realisation advice to Bangalore Main Branch of respondent-Bank without making corresponding debit in the account. Here is an officer, who removes the cheque leafs from a cheque book surrendered in respect of a closed account and uses the same to gain financial benefits for a temporary period. Here is an officer, who surreptitiously removes the cheque book from the Bank, when she was specifically restrained from using the cheque book. Here is an officer, who issues cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in her account, when this officer is told that these commissions and omissions would constitute misconduct, through out the proceedings she only pleads mercy and blames her husband for evil activities, In a matter like this, whether this Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction could modify the major punishment and impose lesser punishment. Now law is well settled on this aspect of the matter. The Apex Court in the ease of Union of India and another Vs. G. Ganayutham (Dead) by LRs., , was pleased to observe as under:
"30. In Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , this Court interfered with the punishment only after coming to the conclusion that the punishment was in outrageous defiance of logic and was shocking. It was also described as perverse and irrational. In other words, this Court felt that, on facts, Wednesbury and CCSU tests were satisfied. In another case, in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, , a three Judge Bench said the same thing as follows (para 18 of AIR):
"The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusions on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal it would appropriately mould the relief either by directing the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare case, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
Similar view was taken in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, , that the Court will not intervene unless the punishment is wholly disproportionate".
An officer of a Bank is not only expected to protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence but also to do nothing which is an unbecoming of a Bank Officer. The regulation of the Bank also requires the officer/employee to maintain good conduct and discipline. But here is an officer, who has forgotten these ethics and indulges herself in all sorts of misadventures. It is difficult to countenance and condone grave lapses committed and accepted by the delinquent officer. Therefore, it is not possible to accede to the request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to substitute lesser punishment to the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.