Back
Upholds Removal Of Officer For Diverting ₹40 Lakh
The has upheld the removal from service of Sudip Mandal, an officer of , who was found guilty in a departmental proceeding of diverting ₹40 lakh from a customer's account. Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi dismissed the writ petition challenging the disciplinary action, ruling that the employee could not claim protection under and that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in .
Background: ₹10,000 Limit Raised to ₹45 Lakh
Mandal joined the bank as a Probationary Officer in JMG Scale-I in
. On
, he allegedly enhanced the cash credit limit of an account from ₹10,000 to ₹45 lakh and, on the same day, transferred ₹40 lakh via NEFT to another account. An FIR was registered, and he was suspended in
. A departmental inquiry followed, and after a chargesheet was served in
, the inquiry officer found him guilty of cheating and misappropriation. The disciplinary authority—the General Manager—imposed the penalty of
"
"
on
. His statutory appeal was dismissed in
for being filed after a two-year delay.
Petitioner’s Twin Challenges
Mandal raised two principal grounds before the High Court. First, he argued that his removal violated
because the General Manager, who passed the removal order, was subordinate to the Chairman, who had appointed him. Second, he contended that the disciplinary proceedings had been conducted in breach of an
dated
, passed in an earlier writ petition (WP 8286(W)/2016), which directed that
"the inquiry proceedings should not be commenced without the
."
He argued that the
automatically revived when the writ petition was restored after being
, and that the authorities proceeded without seeking leave, rendering the entire proceeding a
.
Court Rejects Article 311 Protection
Justice Rashidi rejected the first contention, holding that an employee of a regional rural bank does not hold a and therefore cannot invoke Article 311. Relying on the ’s decision in
, the court observed that
, like
, is a
separate from the government. The court noted that Mandal’s service conditions were governed by the
(Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, which designated the General Manager as the
for Scale-I officers.
"The petitioner cannot be allowed to turn around to say that he is entitled for the benefits of
,"
the court said.
: No Established
On the second point, the court examined the timeline. The of , was passed in a writ petition that was on , and restored on . The court acknowledged the general principle from
that
of a proceeding. However, it distinguished the case on facts.
"Nothing appears to have been placed on record that such orders were communicated to the respondents or the enquiry officer enabling them to hold their hands from the inquiry proceedings,"
the court observed. It also noted that Mandal never appeared during the inquiry despite notices, though he submitted a written defence and sought documents. The inquiry commenced on
, and concluded on
. The court further pointed out that the earlier writ petition was again
on
, with the order specifically recording that
"
, if any, shall stand vacated."
Key Observations on Bank Officer Conduct
The court emphasised the high standards of integrity expected from bank officers, quoting from
:
"A bank officer is required to exercise
. 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
and to do nothing which is
."
The court also cited to reiterate that courts should not interfere with punishment unless it "." Noting that Mandal had been found guilty of embezzling ₹40 lakh, the court held that the disciplinary authority's findings were based on and that the petitioner was afforded himself.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the disciplinary authority acted in of the court's earlier order or that the punishment was otherwise invalid. The judgment reinforces the principle that bank employees must maintain high standards of conduct and that constitutional protections like Article 311 are not available to employees of regional rural banks. The connected applications were also disposed of.
