Back
1998 Supreme(AP) 705
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY, R.M.BAPAT
Chief General Manager-cum-Displinary Authority, State Bank of India - Appellant
Versus
S.Yesudas - Respondent
Decided On : 10-07-98
The disciplinary rules applicable to officers, rather than those applicable to workmen, govern the dismissal of a bank officer for misconduct committed while he was an officer.
Headnote:
DISMISSAL OF BANK OFFICER - CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT - APPLICABILITY OF DISCIPLINARY RULES - DISTINCTION BETWEEN WORKMEN AND OFFICERS - INTERPRETATION OF AWARD OF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 226.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a bank officer, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings for various charges of misconduct. He challenged the dismissal order in a writ petition, arguing that the disciplinary rules applicable to workmen should have been followed instead of the rules governing officers, and that the charges were not established.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disciplinary rules governing officers were applicable to the respondent, as he was an officer at the time of the alleged misconduct. The court also held that the charges against the respondent were established on the basis of the evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary rules applicable to workmen or officers should be applied to the respondent. 2. Whether the charges against the respondent were established.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the disciplinary rules governing officers were applicable to the respondent, as he was an officer at the time of the alleged misconduct. The court distinguished between workmen and officers, and held that the respondent could not claim the benefits of the disciplinary rules applicable to workmen after he had been promoted to the rank of officer. 2. The court held that the charges against the respondent were established on the basis of the evidence. The court found that the respondent had tampered with bank records to cover up his unauthorized absence, and that he had misappropriated funds received from bank customers.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition.
( 1 ) THE respondent- writ petitioner who was working in the State Bank of India as Cash Officer (Junior Manager, Scale-I, Supervisory Cadre) was removed from service by an order dated 27-4-1989 passed by the first appellant herein. Appeal to the second appellant and the review filed before the third appellant were rejected by respective speaking orders. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed in April, 1991 questioning the order of removal as confirmed by the appellate and reviewing authorities. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on three grounds: 1) Charge No. (b) is not established, the finding of the Enquiry Officer being perverse; 2) Allegations in charge No. (c) do not constitute mis-conduct under the Disciplinary Rules governing the Award Staff; and 3) Charges (a) and (d) "are incompetent and without jurisdiction" in the sense that the procedure obtaining under the SBI Supervisory Staff Service Rules was applied whereas the procedure governing the Award Staff should have been followed while conducting the enquiry. The learned Judge left it open to the Management to take action under the provisions of the Sastri Award/bipartite settlement if they so choose. The relevant portion of the charge-sheet and the charges framed against the respondent-writ petitioner are as follows: " (a) You had misused your position and failed to properly account for the amount received from one of the borrowers and temporarily retained the same with you and unauthorisedly in flagrant violation of the laid down procedure. (b) You had absented yourself from duty and with a view to establish your presence at the Branch, tampered the branch Books and perpetrated serious irregularities. (c) You had resorted to outside borrowings and placed yourself under pecuniary obligation to a person having dealings with the bank and also caused negotiation of a SB withdrawal form drawn on your account without sufficient balance therein. Further you had obtained a loan from another Bank, without the knowledge of your controlling Authority. (d) You had fraudulently misappropriated the amounts received from the Bank s constituents for credit of their Recurring Deposit Accounts and temporarily retained/ utilised such monies for your personal use. To camouflage your fraudulent acts, you had tampered with the Bank s records and resorted to improper methods. "
( 2 ) THE respondent was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the year 1977 and he was promoted to the Officer s rank with effect from 20-8-1996. Charge No. (b) is in respect of alleged misconduct committed by him while he was working as Junior Officer (Cash) at Bijinepalli branch. The rest of the charges relate to the acts committed by him while he was working at Banaganapalle and other branches as Clerk-cum-Cashier which post comes under the category of workman governed by the Award of National Industrial Tribunal constituted for Bank Disputes.
( 3 ) FIRST, we will take up the question whether the conclusion of the learned Judge vis-a-vis charges (a) and (d) is justified. Charges (a) and (d) relate to "temporary misappropriation" of the amounts received from the Bank customers and tampering with Bank records to cover up the misconduct. In this context, the learned Judge after referring to the distinguishing features in the Disciplinary Rules and Procedure under the Award/ Settlement and the Officers Service Regulations observed as follows:"from the above, it can be seen that there is marked difference between the procedure prescribed for disciplinary action under the Bipartite Settlements and one under the Officer Service Regulations. "
( 4 ) THE learned single Judge following the decision of the Madras High Court in M. N. Pavithran v. Central Bank of India, 1985 (1) LLJ 26 and distinguishing the decision of this Court in R. Marakayya v. Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, AIR 1962 AP 303, concluded as follows:"but at the same time the procedure as contemplated under t
