Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Shd. C. Narnolia - Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1762/2013
Decided On : 01-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
in person, for the Petitioner; Mr. Saket Sikri, Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Mr. Arun Sanwal & Mr. Sriwas, Advocates, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that charges of misconduct proved in a departmental inquiry can lead to dismissal from service, and the court will not interfere if there is no illegality or procedural lack in conducting the inquiry.

Headnote:
Misconduct - Bank Officer - Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 - Charges proved against the petitioner - Dismissal upheld - [MISCONDUCT] - [Bank Officer] - [Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976, Section 19]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a bank officer, was charged with misconduct related to irregularities in four group accounts. The charges were proved in the departmental inquiry, leading to the petitioner's dismissal from service. The petitioner appealed against the dismissal, which was upheld by the appellate authority.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charges of misconduct against the petitioner were proved in the departmental inquiry. The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, stating that there was no illegality or procedural lack in conducting the inquiry.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's alleged misconduct in handling four group accounts, the departmental inquiry, and the dismissal of the petitioner from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges of misconduct were proved in the departmental inquiry, and there was no illegality or procedural lack in conducting the inquiry. The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from service.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the impugned orders dated 30th March, 2009, 15th April, 2010 and 16th April, 2012 passed by the respondent bank along with a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages with consequential relief and all attending benefits.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The background of the case is discussed as under: -

(I) The petitioner joined the respondent Bank on 18th October 1976 as a clerk, was promoted as Scale I officer on 28th March 1983 and to Scale II Manager on 20th April 1998 and discharged his duty in various roles.

(II) On 7th June 2006, the petitioner was issued explanation call letter No. DC/SSO/3252/2006 Def. 1297 by the respondent, to which, petitioner replied on 30th June 2006.

(III) The respondent Bank issued chargesheet No. IRS:DP:DL:CS:49/07 dated 1st October, 2007 to the petitioner in respect of irregularities in the following Group Accounts namely:

a) M/s Kumbh Steel (P) Ltd.

b) Maharaja Ispat (P) Ltd.

c) Karamvir Steels (P), Ltd.

d) Moskos Steel (P) Ltd.

The Charges against the petitioner are as follows:

(i) That the enhancement was recommended without properly assessing proposal and without verifying whether party has actually merit for enhancement. No additional security was insisted to cover up proposed enhancement.

(ii) The limit was recommended to be enhanced though account was having various adverse features such as account overdrawn, party frequently approaching for overdraft which were not regularized in time return of discounted cheques, low turnover passed through the account & dealing of the party not satisfactory.

(iii) During the month of November, 2004, party was permitted overdrawings of huge value though DP in the account was not available. These overdrawings were beyond the delegated powers of the branch but no ratification was obtained.

(iv) The enhanced limit was released to the party without complying sanction terms and conditions.

(v) Though there were various adverse features in the account, but Petitioner being a Manager, instead of taking corrective steps, recommended an Ad-hoc limit for Rs. 50 lacs to the party on 7th March 2005 for three months. The Ad-hoc limit was released to the party even before getting the sanction from Circle Office.

(vi) The periodical inspection of the stock was not done properly as such there was no proper monitoring of the accounts. The stock statements were not certified/signed by the branch officials.

(vii) There was a misrepresentation of facts to Circle Office. The Ad-hoc limit for Rs. 50 lacs was to be regularized on 18th June 2005. Branch, vide their letter dated 18th June 2005, reported to Circle Office that Ad-hoc limit has been regularized by discounting the cheque for Rs. 50 lacs in his account. However, the cheque returned unpaid on 22nd June 2005 and account became overdrawn again.

(viii) The account has slipped to Non-Performing Assets (hereinafter 'NPA') in September 2005, but was not classified as NPA. It was classified as NPA only in December, 2005. Branch thus concealed these facts.

(IV) The limit in all 4 accounts was enhanced to Rs. 200 lacs during the year 2004.

(V) The Petitioner vide letter dated 10th October 2007, had denied all the charges levelled upon him. Vide letter dated 20th February, 2008, the respondent initiated the Inquiry proceedings against the petitioner.

(VI) Vide letter dated 20th February 2008, the Respondent had issued a letter to the Petitioner calling him to participate in the Preliminary Inquiry on 5th March, 2008. Thereafter on 25th March, 2008, the evidence of the respondent's witnesses were recorded and documents were exhibited.

(VII) Vide letter dated 29th April, 2008, Petitioner was supplied with the copy of finding of Inquiry Officer and representative of Petitioner submitted his reply to the Inquiry Authority.

(VIII) On 11th April, 2009, Petitioner