SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Gau) 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI, J.
Indra Mohan Pator – Appellant
Vs.
United Bank of India and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 3851 of 2006
Decided On: 03.01.2014

Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. S.K. Medhi, Mr. N. Medhi and Mr. J. Das, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. S. Dutta and Mr. M. Choudhury, Advocates

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - 120B/420/471/468/477A - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section13(2) and 13(1)(d) - United Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 - Evidence Act, 1882 - Section 102 - Appointed as General Clerk - Suspended from service - Misconduct - Petitioner was appointed as General Clerk in the Bank on was promoted as Officer of the Bank at Jorhat Branch - After his transfer to the Demow Chariali Branch as Deputy Manager, he was by the order dated suspended from service as disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him for certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him while functioning as Deputy Manager of Demow-Chariali Branch of Bank - Regularly opened S.B. A/C No. of with ulterior motive and violating the rules of Bank under your single signature when other officers were present in Branch and did not deliberately receive confirmation of address and occupation either from introducer or from customer before or after opening of account exposing the Bank to fraud in the said account and account-holder being non-traceable at recorded address and acted in connivance with to defraud Bank – Held, unless punishment imposed by disciplinary or appellate authority shocks conscience the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference - Further to shorten litigation it may in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof - In normal course if punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would appropriate to direct disciplinary authority or appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed - Court have no hesitation to hold that punishment imposed on the respondent cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of charges proved against the respondent - Any sympathy shown to him can only be a misplaced sympathy - In this view of matter, interference of this Court either in the impugned order of dismissal or in connected departmental enquiry is not warranted - Off-shoot of foregoing discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed - However on facts and in circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs - Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT

Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the order dated 23.12.1998 passed by the Zonal Manager, United Bank of India, Guwahati Zonal Office, Guwahati imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement upon him and of the inaction of the appellate authority to dispose of the departmental appeal filed by him. The facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly noted at the outset. The petitioner was appointed as General Clerk in the Bank on 7.7.1983, was promoted on 1.1.1988 as Officer of the Bank at the Jorhat Branch. After his transfer to the Demow Chariali Branch as Deputy Manager, he was by the order dated 4.8.1995 suspended from service as disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him for certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him while functioning as Deputy Manager of the Demow-Chariali Branch of the Bank. On 12.9.1996, he was charge-sheeted and was asked to submit his written statement of defence against the charges. However, on 29.4.1997, the charge-sheet was amended by the respondent-Bank. The following are the charges levelled against the petitioner:

(a) You had regularly opened S.B. A/C No. 8028 of Smt. Champa Sahu on 24.1.1994 with ulterior motive and violating the rules of the Bank under your single signature when other officers were present in the Branch and did not deliberately receive the confirmation of address and occupation either from the introducer or from the customer before or after opening of the account exposing the Bank to fraud in the said account and the account-holder being non-traceable at the recorded address and acted in connivance with Shah Jamal Ali to defraud the Bank.

(b) You had acted in connivance with Shah Jamal Ali, C.C.G. and passed withdrawal slips for Rs. 2,000/- dated 13.3.95, Rs. 1600/- dated 7.4.95, Rs. 300/- dated 13.4.95, Rs. 500/- dated 24.4.95 and Rs. 3000/- dated 20.5.95 totalling to Rs. 7,400/- in the S.B. A/C No. 8028 of Smt. Champa Sahu and also one debit voucher for Rs. 400/- dated 22.4.95 in the same SB A/C deliberately to defraud the Bank although the previous posing/balance figures in the previous occasions were not duly checked and ticked as per rules of the Bank and there were no genuine credit in the account, causing/exposing the Bank to financial risk/loss.

(c) You had acted in connivance with Shah Jamal Ali, C.C.G., and had allowed him deliberately with ulterior motive to defraud the Bank by allowing him to work in S.B. Ledger No. 23 without issuing any formal office order giving the said Ali enough scope to make 21 (twenty one) fictitious and fraudulent entries amounting to Rs. 22,100/- in S.B. A/C No. 8028 of Smt. Champa Sahu on 20 (twenty) different dates from 9.3.95 to 4.7.95 o defraud the Bank causing financial loss o the Bank to that extent, since entire amount was subsequently withdrawn from the A/C.

(d) You had acted in connivance with Shal Jamal Ali, C.C.G. of the Branch and had allowed him deliberately and with ulterior motive to defraud the Bank by allowing him to work in S.B. Ledger No. 19 without issuing any formal office order, giving the said Ali enough scope to make 14 debit entries by fake withdrawal slips without accompanied by Pass Book in S.B. A/C No. 6835 of Shri K.B. Singh from 12.12.94 to 23.6.95 amounting to Rs. 2,95,900/- of which Rs. 2,93,000/- comprising 13 debit entries have been passed by you irregularly and motivatedly. There were two other fake withdrawals totalling Rs. 50,000/- passed by you irregularly and motivatedly from 18.11.94 to 22.11.94 without accompanied by Pass Book. You also allowed the said Ali free access to Ledger Control Sheet and o manipulate Bank's book of record by taking new Control Sheet No. 129249 and by preparing a concocted Ledger Sheet No. 129249 omitting 16 debit entries totalling Rs. 3,45,900/- (Rs. 2,95,00- Rs. 50,000/-) replacing/destroying original ledger sheet ending No. 3073 and thus caused financial loss to the Ba











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top