Surjit Ghosh vs Chairman And Managing Director, United Commercial Bank

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1995 Supreme(SC) 190

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. SAWANT AND FAIZAN-UDDIN, JJ.
Surjit Ghosh, Appellant
Versus
Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank, and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1338 of 1988
Decided on 6-2-1995.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. B. Sanyal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. D. Ahmed, Mr. P. Sinha and Mr. D. S. Chauhan Advocates, with him for Appellant; Mr. D. P. Gupta, Solicitor General , Mr. G. Joshi and Mr. A. K. Sib, Advocates with him, for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.K.Sil, B.D.AHMED, D.P.GUPTA, D.S.Chauhan, G.JOSHI, P.Sinha, S.B.SANYAL

Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(2) - Investigation - Suspended - Appears that in meanwhile Bank dismissed appellant from service by its order pursuant to order of Sessions Court - Against said order appellant approached High Court by writ petition on February - On his acquittal by High Court on December appellant by his letter January wrote to Bank for reinstating him in service with retrospective effect but Bank did not comply with his request – However High Court in writ petition pending before it by its order set aside order of dismissal from service and directed Bank to reinstate appellant in service with all consequential benefits – Held, Appellant right from year till this day and appellant has been out of employment for all these years - At one stage appellant had offered to forego all arrears of his salary provided he was reinstated in service on post to which he would be entitled at present on basis of his continuous service till date - Court had suggested to Gupta appearing for respondent bank to take instructions in matter - Respondent – Bank however has chosen to reject offer and has instead suggested that Bank would like to pay compensation to appellant since it has lost confidence in him - Court have considered charges against appellant and court find that apart from fact that much can be said in favor of appellant in support of his contention that charge has been trumpeted against him - Inquiry also prima facie suffers from defects as pointed out above though court must add that court have not gone into merits of said defects - Appellant is an ex Army Officer - What is further compensation amount if directed to be paid would come to about - Bank is nationalized Bank and money belongs to public - Huge amount on this scale cannot be paid to anyone for doing no work during this long period just because Bank feels that it has lost confidence in employee - He can certainly be placed in department where he has nothing to do with monetary transactions of Bank such as establishment section etc - Even assuming that Bank has reasons to lose confidence in him -Court are informed at Bar that post to which he would be entitled would be in Grade Scale with basic pay per month which is on par with contemporary existing officers of Bank who have been promoted to Grade Scale on and from – Court therefore direct as follows - Appellant should be paid compensation in lieu of his claim for arrears of salary he should be reinstated in service with continuity of service and without loss of seniority in post to which he would be entitled today on allowed basis of his continuous service within four weeks from date of receipt of this order – Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J. —The appellant was appointed as a Probationary Officer in the respondent-Bank on 4th October, 1971 and confirmed in that post on 24th February, 1973. In August 1975, the appellant was charged for having demanded and taken Rs.1,900/- as bribe from one Sk. Rahul Amin, He was suspended from service on 23rd August, 1975. However, the suspension was revoked with immediate effect by another order of 12th December, 1975. Thereafter, he was again placed under suspension w.e.f. 10th July, 1976 when the Central Bureau of Investigation took up the investigation of the case. Prosecution was launched against him on 28th July, 1977 under Section 6 (1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned Sessions Judge convicted him of the said offence by his order of 14th July, 1978. In appeal, the High Court reversed the order of conviction and acquitted him of the charge by its order of 4th December, 1979.

2. It appears that in the meanwhile, the Bank dismissed the appellant from service by its order of 17th August, 1978 pursuant to the order of the Sessions Court. Against the said order, the appellant approached the High Court by a writ petition on 9th February, 1979. On his acquittal by the High Court on 4th December, 1979 the appellant by his letter of 11th January, 1980 wrote to the Bank for reinstating him in service with retrospective effect but the Bank did not comply with his request. However, the High Court in the writ petition pending before it, by its order of 25th June, 1980 set aside the order of dismissal from service and directed the Bank to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The appellant was reinstated in service pursuant to his order and was posted as Assistant Manager at the Hazari Road Branch. On 17th August, 1982, he was transferred to Assistant General Managers [AGM] office. West Bengal Division-I and on 23rd August, 1982 he was served with a letter alleging therein that on 14th August, 1982 while he was working as Assistant Manager at the Hazari Road Branch, he had prepared and signed one debit voucher for Rs. 4,800/- being the amount on account of " interest payable on deposit FDR" mentioning therein the fixed deposit No. 223638/108/79. It was alleged in that letter that the appellant had obtained a token against the said voucher by presenting it to the token clerk and had also verified the signature of the FDR holder on the reverse of this voucher, and on this voucher being posted in the ledger of the ledger Clerk and passed by the passing Officer in good faith, the appellant had received a cash amount of Rs. 4,800/- against the said voucher etc.

The appellant was also placed under suspension from the date of the service of the said letter i. e., 23rd August, 1982 under Regulation 12 (1) (a) and (b) of the United Commercial Bank Officers [Discipline and Appeals] Regulations, 1976 (the Regulations). The departmental inquiry was thereafter held with the Manager of the branch of the Bank as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer by his report dated 28th May, 1985 held the appellant guilty of two of the charges levelled against him. On the basis of the said report the respondent No. 2, the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, West Bengal Zone of the Bank by his order dated 14th November, 1985 dismissed the appellant from service. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the same and the Division Bench in appeal confirmed the said order. It is aggrieved by the decision of the High Court that the present appeal has been preferred.

4. Some grievances have been made by the appellant in the present appeal touching upon the illegalities in the conduct of the proceedings such as that (a) the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by an incompetent disciplinary authority in breach of Regulation 8(2) (iii) read wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document