Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
T. D. Makhija Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India – Respondent
LPA 129 of 2023
Decided On : 22-02-2023
Fraud - Disciplinary Proceedings - Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - Regulation 7 - Regulation 6(2) - Regulation 6(6)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employee of Union Bank of India, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and dismissed from service due to fraudulent activities including embezzlement and manipulation of the computer system. The appellant's appeal and review petitions were dismissed, and a writ petition was filed before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's guilt was established through documentary and oral evidence in the departmental enquiry. The court held that the disciplinary authority's decision was based on evidence and did not violate the principles of natural justice and fair play. The court also emphasized the seriousness of embezzlement by a banker and the need for strict action.
Issues: The issues included the appellant's involvement in fraudulent activities, violation of regulations, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the limited scope of judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings, the adequacy of evidence, and the need to follow prescribed procedures and rules of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the disciplinary authority's decision to dismiss the appellant from service.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.
1. The present LPA is arising out of the judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed in W.P.(C.) No. 14314/2005 titled T. D Makhija Vs. Union Bank of India under Clause X of Letters Patent.
2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Appellant before this Court was an employee serving the Union Bank of India was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and after holding a detailed departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has inflicted a punishment of dismissal from service.
3. A review petition was preferred, the same was also dismissed in the matter.
4. The Appellant, thereafter, preferred a Writ Petition before the Learned Single Judge and the same was dismissed by an order dated 13.09.2022, and a subsequent review petition preferred in the matter has also been dismissed by the Learned Single Judge by an order dated 09.12.2022.
5. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant before this Court became employee of Respondent Bank in the year 1972, and, thereafter, participated as a departmental candidate for the post of Officer Grade-I in the year 1977. He was promoted as Officer Grade-I in December, 1977.
6. The misconduct on the basis of which the Appellant has been removed dates back to his posting while he was serving as a System Administrator, SSI, Okhla Branch for certain acts of omission and commission, and he was placed under suspension by the Competent Disciplinary Authority with effect from 10.08.1999. The Respondent Bank also lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against the Appellant and one Sohanlal.
7. The Disciplinary Authority issued a Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him and a detailed and exhaustive charge-sheet was issued on 13.03.2000.
The article of charges annexed along with charge-sheet are detailed as under:
"ARTICLES OF CHARGE
Shri T. D. Makhija while working as System Administrator, SSI, Okhla Branch, has committed certain acts of omission and commission.
Shri Makhija, in association with Shri Sohan Lal and Shri Umesh Garg, manipulated the Computer System, with a motive to do the fraud. Due to their fraudulent acts, they were able to withdraw unauthorisedly cash to the tune of Rs. 23.38 lacs, from SSI Okhla Branch, New Delhi.
Shri Makhija also indulged in the following acts: He authorized the Local-branch Debit Advices for which he is not competent:
He authorized Local-branch Credit Advice of Rs. 4.45 lacs, against unclear effect without the permission of Competent Authority.
He credited Clearing on 30.3.98, lodged to Service Branch on 30.3.98 to be credited in the respective account on 30.3.98.
He debited Inward Clearing return in Suspense A/c D.N.R. instead of party A/c and manipulated this head to hide out the misdeed.
Shri Makhija is informed the above acts of omission and commission on his part constitute the following misconduct and he is hereby charged of the same:
1. Failure to perform his duties with utmost, devotion, diligence, honesty and integrity.
2. Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank.
3. Doing acts unbecoming of a Bank Officer.
4. Acting otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties.
Shri Makhija is further informed that the details of his fraudulent activities are given in the enclosed statement of allegations.
Shri Makhija is hereby called upon to submit his statement of defence within 10 days from receipt hereof by him as to why appropriate disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the aforesaid lapses on his part, if he fails to submit his explanation within the above-stipulated period, it will be deemed that he has nothing to say in the matter and the same will be proceeded with further on that basis. Shri Makhija has the permission of undersigned to visit SSI Okhla Branch for inspection of records, if he so desires, to facilitate submission of his statement of defence."
8. The Appellan
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings, the need for evidence to support findings, and the importance of following prescribed procedures and rules....
The court confirmed that disciplinary authorities possess broad discretion in imposing penalties, which cannot be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or in breach of natural justi....
The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited, and the Court will not interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority unless there is a violation of natural justice or the....
The court emphasized the bank's loss of confidence in the appellant and upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement, citing the appellant's failure to follow banking procedures and exercise honest....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and the court does not reappraise evidence unless there is a violation of natural justice.
(1) Dismissal--Standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, same charges and evidence may lead to different results in....
Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence, interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordan....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
