Sri Sanjaya Kumar Sahani vs The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Andhra Bank and Others

Loan No.,Borrower name,Amount,"D a t e of actual

receipt",credited on

96/BE/49,T. Laxmi,1500-00,31.03.1997,07.04.1997

93/SERI/20,T. Sitharam,600-00,07.04.1997,15.04.1997

94/DRI/RT/2,B. Bhagya Laxmi,300-00,07.04.1997,15.04.1997

95/CL/1006,U Rajaiah,1070-00,31.03.1997,07.04.1997

95/CL/980,J Narender,900-00,29.03.1997,07.04.1997

Date of advance,Name of staff,Purpose,Amount,Adjusted on

6.11.1995,B Bopi Singh,Dep. Modi,150-00,10.06.1997

2.01.1996,-do-,Cig. Chs to KNR,150-00,

08.10.1996,-do-,Dep. Mobi.,370-00,

15.07.1995,-do-,Cig. Chs to KNR,140-00,

05.02.1996,-do-,-do-,150-00,10.06.1997

09.04.1996,-do-,-do-,249-00,

30.04.1996,-do-,Dep. Mobi,180-00,

07.06.1996,-do-,-do-,180-00,

06.11.1996,-do-,-do-,500-00,

02.12.1996,-do-,-do-,500-00,30.06.1997

01.01.1997,-do-,-do-,150-00,

01.01.1997,-do-,-do-,500-00,

05.03.1997,-do-,-do-,500-00,25.06.1997

22.11.1996,G. Suresh,-do-,500-00,

13.12.1996,G. Suresh,-do-,500-00,30.06.1997

each of the charges involving the petitioner. This Court finds absolutely no infirmity in the inquiry report. Now coming to consider the allegation of the,,,,

petitioner regarding no opportunity for submitting his objection to the inquiry report, this Court on production of a copy of the memorandum of appeal",,,,

by the petitioner himself, perused the same and from the narrations made therein, this Court nowhere finds any averments/allegations at least bringing",,,,

his objections to the inquiry report at any further stage. This apart, since the petitioner had the scope of his objection to the proposed punishment, this",,,,

Court also observes the petitioner has failed to raise any such objection here also.,,,,

Petitioner in spite of his getting a scope for raising his objection to the observations and/or findings in the Enquiry report in filing Appeal as well as a,,,,

Review, no material is forthcoming indicating the objection of the petitioner to the enquiry report at either stage of the matter. Further, reading of the",,,,

Enquiry report forming part of the Counter affidavit and find place at annexure-B, this Court finds, the Enquiry Officer has not only taken all aspects",,,,

involved into consideration, but it has in a well consideration of matter consciously took his view on each of the charges and even exonerated the",,,,

petitioner from many of the charges and as such no fault is traced from the Enquiry report. From the detail counter affidavit, it is also observed that all",,,,

necessary formalities have been observed by the Enquiry Officer in the process of enquiry. On close scrutiny of the entire aspect, this Court finds,",,,,

even though the petitioner was supplied with the copy of Report, but however he has chosen not to submit any explanation to the same. Thus, this",,,,

Court here finds, the allegation of the petitioner in this regard remains contrary to the materials on record.",,,,

Now coming to consider the second ground urged by the petitioner, i.e., the punishment awarded becomes disproportionate to the quantum of",,,,

offence, this Court on close scrutiny of the charges as well as the observation and findings of the Enquiry Officer finds for the details available therein",,,,

there is right appreciation of the case by the Enquiry Officer. Looking to the nature of charges, it is also observed that each charge involving the",,,,

petitioner constitute a serious charge. Series of major charges having been established, it appears, petitioner is not right in his approach and for the",,,,

finding therein there is no scope to interfere or directing reconsidering the punishment aspect. It is at this stage, considering a decision involving The",,,,

Disciplinary Authoritycum-Regional Manager and others vrs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, reported in 83 (1997) C.L.T. 533 / 1996 (9) SCC 69, the",,,,

Hon’ble Apex Court considering a case of similar nature, particularly involving an Officer acting beyond Authority has categorically observed that",,,,

“the very discipline of an organisation and more particularly a bank is dependant upon each of its employee and officers acting and operating within,,,,

their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of the Regulation itself and it constitutes,,,,

misconductâ€. Similarly, from another decision in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another vrs. Munna Lal Jain, reported in",,,,

AIR 2005 S.C. 584 the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-17 held as follows :-,,,,

“17. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers.,,,,

Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost,,,,

integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from",,,,

the functioning of every officer / employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja,,,,

Bihari Patnaik (1996(9) SCC 69), it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer / employee acted",,,,

without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and,,,,

operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the,,,,

employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.â€​,,,,

This Court perused the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Niroj Kumar Das vrs. United Bank of,,,,

India and others, reported in 2016 (I) OLR 602 and in the case of A.K. Saxena vrs. State Bank of Patiala and others, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 289.",,,,

This Court for the observations and findings herein, finds no application of the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the",,,,

case at hand.,,,,

For the observations of this Court hereinabove, the proven misconduct by the petitioner being confirmed by both the Appellate Authority as well as",,,,

the Reviewing authority, for the settled law that High Court cannot sit over such matters as Appellate authority and for the ruling of the Hon’ble",,,,

Apex Court taken note hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, for which the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.",,,,