Back
2020 Supreme(Guj) 120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
Sukesh N Desai – Appellant
Versus
Bank Of India – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 757 of 2004
Decided on : 24-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. N.V. GANDHI
For the Respondent: Mr. PARITOSH GUPTA for M/S TRIVEDI AND GUPTA
Point of Law:
Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer.
Headnote:
Writ Petition – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent of imposing the punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (“the Rules”), which was confirmed by the appellate authority of the respondent vide order. Petitioner was working as Chief Manager, Personnel at Ahmedabad and he was served with the articles of charge for the certain acts of misconduct, which was alleged to have been found committed, when he was serving as Chief Manager (NRI Branch) in the Head Office of respondent at Vadodara. Held – It is true, that in some cases, no loss has resulted from such acts and in some other instances such acts have yielded profit to the Bank, but it is equally true that in some other instances, the funds of the Bank have been placed in jeopardy; the advances have become sticky and irrecoverable very act of acting beyond authority – and the conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances – is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such adventures are not given to the employees of Banks which deal with public funds – Petition is dismissed. (Para 13)
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent of imposing the punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (“the Rules”), which was confirmed by the appellate authority of the respondent vide order. Petitioner was working as Chief Manager, Personnel at Ahmedabad and he was served with the articles of charge for the certain acts of misconduct, which was alleged to have been found committed, when he was serving as Chief Manager (NRI Branch) in the Head Office of respondent at Vadodara.
Finding of the Court:
It is true, that in some cases, no loss has resulted from such acts and in some other instances such acts have yielded profit to the Bank, but it is equally true that in some other instances, the funds of the Bank have been placed in jeopardy; the advances have become sticky and irrecoverable very act of acting beyond authority – and the conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances – is by itself a misconduct.
Result: Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. At the outset learned advocate Mr.Gandhi appearing on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out that the petition is filed against the respondent “State Bank of India”, however, the board reflects the name of the respondent as “Bank of India”. On perusal of the record of the petition, it is found that while feeding the data in the computer such mistake has occurred. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to amend/correct the cause-title in the computer, as per the memo of petition and issue writ thereafter.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.09.2002 passed by the respondent of imposing the punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (“the Rules”), which was confirmed by the appellate authority of the respondent vide order dated 13.06.2003.
3. The petitioner was working as Chief Manager, Personnel at Ahmedabad and he was served with the articles of charge dated 13.12.2000 for the certain acts of misconduct, which was alleged to have been found committed, when he was serving as Chief Manager (NRI Branch) in the Head Office of respondent at Vadodara. The details of the allegations are as under:
“(A) You arranged the finance for Shrinath Steel Ltd. as stated in the above paras.
(b) You were approached by M/s. Toshvin Industries Ltd. for arranging funds. You took representatives of Toshwin Industries Ltd. to S.S. Sodhi of Kamla Electrical & Engg. Co., Baroda for arranging a loan of Rs.10 lacs from Shri Sodhi to Toshwin Industries. It is alleged that a brokerage of 2% was paid to you alongwith Shri Pradip Gupta. Subsequently, M/s. Toshwin Industries Ltd. asked for another loan of Rs.5 lacs from S.S. Sodhi for which you acted as an intermediary alongwith Shri Gupta. You had collected advance receipt of Rs.5 lacs alongwith undated cheques and shares of Toshwin Industries Ltd. for Rs.1 lac for passing on to Mr.Sodhi. You were paid brokerage of 2% on this account also alongwith Mr.Gupta as alleged.
(c) You introduced Shri Ashok Abhyankar, Director of Pearl Paper Products Ltd. (PPPL) to Shri S.S. Sodhi for arranging loan for PPPL. A cheque No. 475161 for Rs.5 lacs drawn on Punjab National Bank, Atmajyoti Ashram Branch, Baroda was issued by your son, Anant S. Desai and the cheque was encashed by PPPL.
(d) You had also served as an intermediary for the loan of Rs.4 lacs given by Shri Dinkar R. Patel, NRI Accountholder at Baroda Main Branch to PPPL. The account of Shri Dinkar R. Patel was operated thorough Shir Niranjan T. Patel, Power of Attorney holder. The cheque No. 910926 favouring PPPL for Rs.4 lacs was handed over by Shri Niranjan T. Patel to you and you had handed over the same cheque for Shri Abhyankar. Shri Abhyankar and Shri Niranjan T. Patel had never met each other. Apparently, you were intermediary for these transactions.
(e) At no stage you had informed the Bank regarding arranging of finance on commission basis by you and your son which you should have done in accordance with the extant service rules governing your service in the Bank.
3. Because of your above lapses/irregularities, the Bank is exposed to a financial loss of Rs.50.00 lacs in this regard.”
3.1 After holding a departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer vide his inquiry report dated 19.01.2002 held the charges proved against the petitioner and accordingly, he was issued a show-cause notice calling upon his explanation to the findings from the Inquiry Officer. After considering the reply tendered by the petitioner to the Inquiry Officer dated 16.02.2002, the disciplinary authority and Chief General Manager imposed the aforesaid penalty of dismissal from service under the Rules. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal against the order of penalty and the same was also rejected by the order dated 13.06.2003. Both the impugned orders are the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi a
