Back
2012 Supreme(Gau) 815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Sri Sasanka Kumar Paul, Son of Late A.C. Paul, R/o Kamakhya Nagar, Adabari Tiniali, Guwahati, Kamrup, Assam - Appellants
Vs.
The Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. having its Head Office at Panbazar, Guwahati-781001, Kamrup, Assam - represented by its Managing Director, The Board of Directors, The Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Panbazar, Guwahati-781001, represented by the Chairman, The Managing Director, The Assam Co-operative Apex Bank, Panbazar, Guwahati-781001 and The General Manager (Tea)/ Enquiry Officer, The Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Panbazar, Guwahati-1 - Respondent
W.P. (C) 5367/2003
Decided On: 16.07.2012
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. S.N. Sharma, Sr. Advocate and Mr. A. Zahid, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. P.N. Goswami, SC, Apex Bank
Admission of facts in charges amounts to admission of guilt, and past irregularities cannot justify present misconduct.
Headnote:
Dismissal from Service - Financial Irregularities - Enquiry Report - Charges Established - Penalty Upheld
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a General Manager at a bank, was served with a show cause notice for 16 charges related to financial irregularities. After a domestic enquiry, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner, who was to retire the next day.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were established based on the enquiry report, and upheld the penalty of dismissal from service.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the charges, the conduct of the enquiry, and the imposition of the penalty just before the petitioner's retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that admission of particular facts in the charges amounted to admission of guilt, and that the irregularity in conducting the enquiry did not invalidate the charges. The court also emphasized that past irregularities could not justify present misconduct.
Final Decision: The court did not interfere with the penalty of dismissal from service, but directed the Board of Directors to re-examine whether the penalty could be converted to compulsory retirement, considering the petitioner's imminent retirement and health issues.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Zahid, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Apex Bank. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-P order dated 27.6.2003, by which, he was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service with effect from 27.6.2003. Be it stated here that in the normal circumstances, the petitioner was to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 28.6.2003.
2. The petitioner while in service as General Manager, Planning and Development Department of the respondent Bank was served with the show cause notice dated 14.2.2002 (Annexure-A) leveling as many as 16 charges. Along with the show cause notice, statement of allegation in respect of each one of the charges had also been annexed. The charges related to allowing number of drawl exceeding the cash credit limit; irregular recommendation to the sanctioning authority for sanction of additional limits; misleading the sanctioning authority about the actual status regarding the ownership of the particular Tea Estate; connivance with the particular lessee of the particular Tea Estate in getting MT Loan; gross irregularities involving the status of the cash credit account; willful concealment of vital information from the sanctioning authority about the liabilities of the parties to the Bank; allowing a number of drawls in the C.C. account of a particular party exceeding the sanctioned limit; gross violation of all banking norms etc. Details of the charges had been furnished to the petitioner by way of a statement of allegation against each one of the charges.
3. On receipt of the chargesheet, the petitioner made certain correspondences for providing documents to him. While according to the petitioner, some of the documents sought for by him, had not been provided, according to the respondent Bank all the documents had been provided to the petitioner. It is the further stand of the respondents that some of the documents were not necessary to be provided to the petitioner, as the same did not have anything to do with the charges leveled against the petitioner.
4. When the matter rested thus, the petitioner was furnished with another show cause notice dated 2.9.2002 leveling some additional charges numbering 6. The said charges also related to concealment of vital information from the Managing Director in respect of bank guarantee etc.. Over all charges against the petitioner was gross financial irregularity resulting in huge financial loss to the respondent Bank.
5. In due course, a domestic enquiry was conducted, in which, the charges leveled against the petitioner were held established. Thereafter, upon furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report and getting reply of the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by the impugned order dated 27.6.2003. Hence, this writ petition.
6. While Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent Bank acted malafide in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service just at the eve of normal retirement of the petitioner from service, Mr. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Apex Bank has submitted that merely because the timing of the order of dismissal co-incided with the date of retirement of the petitioner from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the same by itself cannot lead to the inference that the same is founded on malafide exercise of power, more particularly, when there is no allegation of any malafide exercise of power on the part of any particular officer of the respondent Bank.
7. Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defence of the petitioner was prejudiced inasmuch as the required documents were not furnished. He further submits that in absence of any proof of misconduct committed by the petitioner in respect of the charges leveled against him, the respondent Bank ought not to hav
