Sri. M. K. Sankaranarayanan vs The UCO Bank

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents.

The facts briefly stated are as follows:

The petitioner was an Ex-serviceman. After discharge from the service in Army, he joined the service of the respondent-Bank in the year 1982, as a Clerk-cum-Assistant Cashier. He was promoted form time to time and was a Head-Cashier-II, when be was placed under suspension in the year 2005. There were in all nine charges against the petitioner.

Charge No.1 wan in respect of & compliant by a customer of rude behavior by the petitioner with him This was held proved, even though the complainant was not examined. Charge No.2 was in relation to indolence in maintaining the daily register of access to lookers, This was held not proved. Charge No.3 was in relation to unauthorised absence for a period of five days, which was held proved. Charge No.4 was again in respect of discourteous behavior with a customer of the Bank. This was held proved, though the complainant was not examined. Charge No.5 was in relation to physical assault of a clerk, of the Bank This was dropped, since the petitioner had already suffered a punishment in respect of the very charge. Charge No.6 was in respect of discourteous behavior with his Superior Tarn was also held proved. Charge No.7 was in relation in dishonour of a Cheque, issued by the petitioner and consequent criminal case was alleged against him under the Negotiable instruments Act, this was also held proved. Charge No.8 was III treatment to a lady customer. This charge was however not proved. Charge No.9 related to incidents of making late payments to a customer. This was held partly proved.

In respect of these charges, though the petitioner had contested the proceedings throughout, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and imposed punishment. The penalty was reduction in pay and censure The same having been questioned in appeal, the Appellate Authority had confirmed the punishsment. It is this which is sought to be questioned in the present position.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though at & domestic enquiry, the charges was sought to be established only on probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt as would be required in criminal proceeding the fact remains that inspire of several charges, there was no evidence worth mentioning, which could have been raised upon by the Enquiry Officer to hold that the charges were proved. As for instance, several complaints in respect of which three charges were framed, it is apparent from the record that the complainants were not examined, Therefore, it cannot be presumed that on the basis of evidence tendered by the Superior Officers of the petitioner that the charges were hold proved. It is also evident that nine charges are in relation to incidences, which are spread over a long period of time, which could not he raised on presumption but on considered opinion by the officials of the Bank to target the petitioner and several charges were therefore foisted on him. This cannot be rated out in the absence of the complainants not having been examined in respect of the said charges.

The other charges of misbehavior with the Superiors and indolence in discharge of the duties and rude behavior with the customers are all matters, which hinge on the evidence of the Officers of the Bank who were enimically disposed with the petitioner, on the basis of such evidence, as the case rested on probabilities, the said evidence cannot be accepted by a prudent mind.

In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had already retired horn the service of the bank, on attaining the age of superannuation and the charges leveled which are in any event baseless, for which the petitioner has to suffer a life long punishment of being denied his pensionary benefits in the fullest extent, to which the petitioner is entitled, Therefore, he would submit that if this Court even if not inclined to interfere with the finding, if the punishment is modified to hold that the reduction of pay shall he without cumulative effect, the petitioner can expect some nominal benefit in the sear future in the evening of his life end therefore he would Submit that his alternative prayer could be considered, if in the event the petition is to be dismissed by this Court.

The learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently oppose the petition and would point out that the non-examination of the complainants is hardly material, since, the complaint is not in dispute by the petitioner the only point that remained was the Enquiry Officer to be satisfied that there was indeed such complaint and that action can be attributable to the petitioner. This aspect having been established satisfactorily and findings having been arrived insofar as misbehavior with the customers is concerned there is no scope for interference,

The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that insofar as the allegation that the charges are frivolous and foisted the petitioner having been given full opportunity of crows-examining the witnesses, who were examined in support of the charges, the same has been brought home to the satisfaction of the Enquiry Officer, as well as Disciplinary Authority. The reasoning assigned in arriving at the findings cannot be faulted, and does not suffer from infirmity. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the suspicion is writ large in the record and the punishment imposed was indeed lenient as the petitioner could have been dismissed from the services having regard to the behavior deposed by the petitioner throughout as against the charges proved against the petitioner, which is evident from record.

Hence, he would submit that an appropriate punishment would have been removal from service and therefore reduction in pay is only a nominal punishment imposed on the petitioner. Even if this is watered down, there is no punishment that the petitioner would be subjected to as he has already retired from the service.

In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the rival contentions, there is no warrant of interference by this Court, either in the evidence of the fact in order to consider any modification of the punishment imposed, as it cannot be said that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges which has been held proved against the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.