Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DEBASISH KAR GUPTA, SHAMPA SARKAR, JJ.
Sukumar Bhattacharya - Petitioners
Versus
Bank of India & Others - Respondents
A.P.O. No. 160 of 2004, Arising out of W.P. No. 1490 of 2002
Decided On : 20-09-2018
For the Petitioners:Debabrata Roy, Gazi Faruque, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R.N. Majumder, S. Chakraborty, S. Bhattacharjee, Advocates.
The punishment imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
BANK OF INDIA - Disciplinary Proceedings - Regulation 3(1), Regulation 24 - The court discussed the legality of the order of the disciplinary authority in remitting the matter back to the inquiring authority, non-supply of the first enquiry report, denial of reasonable opportunity, and violation of the principles of natural justice. The court upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge on the non-existence of any illegality or impropriety in the procedure followed by the respondents. The court also found that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence proved and set aside the order of dismissal from service without notice, directing the respondents to impose any lesser punishment as per its Regulations and release the consequential benefits to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Bank of India manager, was charged with aiding and abetting a fraudulent account opening and cheque clearance, resulting in alleged pecuniary loss to the bank. The appellant challenged the order of punishment of dismissal without notice, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority, through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment of dismissal without notice was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the proved offence, as neither the bank nor the customer had suffered any pecuniary loss due to the appellant's actions. The court set aside the order of dismissal and directed the respondents to impose any lesser punishment as per its Regulations and release the consequential benefits to the appellant.
Issues: Legality of the order of the disciplinary authority in remitting the matter back to the inquiring authority, non-supply of the first enquiry report, denial of reasonable opportunity, and violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence proved, and the court set aside the order of dismissal from service without notice, directing the respondents to impose any lesser punishment as per its Regulations and release the consequential benefits to the appellant.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of punishment of dismissal from service without notice and directed the respondents to impose any lesser punishment as per its Regulations and release the consequential benefits to the appellant.
SHAMPA SARKAR, J.
1. This intra-court appeal has been filed, challenging the judgment and order dated February 26, 2004 passed by a learned Single Judge, in W.P. No.1490 of 2002. By the order impugned the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition without interfering with the orders of the disciplinary authority as also that of the Appellate Authority.
2. Before the learned Single Judge the appellant assailed the order of punishment dated May 31, 2001, of "dismissal without notice" passed in terms of Regulation 4 (j) of Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations) by the respondent no.3 as also the order dated February 19, 2002 passed by the respondent no.2, the appellate authority. The above orders were passed consequent upon initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant in terms of Regulation 6 of the Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976.
3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:-
When the appellant was the Manager of the Salkia Branch of the respondent no.1, namely, Bank of India, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), one Ajoy Kumar Mohanty described himself as the proprietor of Poly Cab Industries of Howrah expressed his desire to open a current account in the said branch. The appellant instructed the sub-staff to take the said person to the dealing official for the actual opening of the account, without complying with the necessary formalities. The said account was thereafter opened by an official of the bank on the instruction of the appellant, and a cheque book was also issued.
4. A cheque dated August 22, 1997 for a sum of Rs.12,77,081/- issued by Indian Oil Corporation favouring Poly Cab Industries and drawn on State Bank of India, Dhakuria Branch, was deposited on September 28, 1997 in the said account. The said cheque was cleared in usual course of business. Thereafter, the said Ajoy Kumar Mohanty between September 23, 1997 and November 30, 1997, withdrew almost the entire amount.
5. Thereafter, Poly Cab Industries alleged that the account which was opened in the name of Poly Cab Industries by Ajoy Kumar Mohanty was a fictitious account and the money had been fraudulently withdrawn by Ajoy Kumar Mohanty, who was not the proprietor and had no connection with Poly Cab Industries. Thereafter, Poly Cab Industries filed a suit inter alia against the Bank claiming a money decree.
6. The Bank issued a charge-sheet on December 9, 1998, inter alia, alleging that the appellant with dishonest intentions had aided and abetted the said Ajoy Kumar Mohanty who falsely claimed to be the proprietor of Poly cab Industries in opening the current account without any introduction and with scant regard to the bank's instructions and guidelines and thereby facilitating the said Ajoy Kumar Mohanty to deposit the allegedly stolen cheque for Rs.12,77,081/- in the said account.
7. The appellant was also charged with aiding and abetting Ajoy Kumar Mohanty to enable him to withdraw the entire amount within 2/3 days and thereby violating the bank's norms and further permitting payment of cheque of Rs.3,80,000/- on September 24, 1997 in spite of objection of other bank employees.
8. Accordingly, the charge against the appellant was commissioned of breach of Regulations 3 (1) and 24 of the said Regulations. The regulations are set out here under:-
"Regulation 3(1): Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer.
Regulation 24: A breach of any of the provisions of these regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976"
9. On October 11, 1999, the departmental enquiry was concluded.
The respondent no.4, as the inqu
