Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Bijay Rajkhowa – Appellants
Vs.
State Bank of India and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 09.02.2007
The court emphasized the need for substantial compliance with procedural requirements in disciplinary proceedings and discussed the concept of 'proportionality' in reviewing the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Headnote:
Forgery - Employment - Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1978 (2) LLJ 84 SC, Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra 1999 (1) LLJ 962 SC, Syed Rahimuddin v. Director General, C.S.I.R, and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2418, State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma 1996 (2) LLJ 296 SC, Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Aroot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. The Educational Appellate Tribunal and Anr. 2000 (1) LLJ 393 SC, Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors. 2003 (2) LLJ 324 SC, High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil and Anr. 2000 (67) ECC 16, E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 (1) LLJ 172 SC, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997) SCC 1806, Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 2 SCC 364, Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy 2005 (2) LLJ 461 SC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India, was dismissed from service for authenticating the signature of a payee on a Bankers Cheque and encashing it, leading to misappropriation of customer's money. The petitioner admitted to authenticating the signature but claimed to have done so in good faith to help a known customer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were proved, and the dismissal order was well-reasoned and valid. The court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Issues: The main grounds of challenge were the insufficiency of evidence and the harshness of the dismissal penalty in comparison to the amount involved in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied principles from various cases to determine the validity of the disciplinary action, emphasizing the need for substantial compliance with procedural requirements and the limited scope of judicial review of administrative action. The court also discussed the concept of 'proportionality' in reviewing the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the dismissal from service and finding the penalty proportionate to the misconduct.
T.N.K. Singh, J.
1. By this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the enquiry report cum findings dated 10th September, 1999, submitted by the Enquiry Officer after full length enquiry in which the petitioner had participated and also he was available with all the opportunities for defending his case, Order dated 30.11.99 passed by the Asstt. General Manager, Region-I (Disciplinary Authority), Order dated 28.1.2000 passed by the Assistant General Manager (Appointing Authority) for imposing the penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner, Order dated 18.7.2000 passed by the Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) for dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.1.2000 for dismissing the petitioner from service and also for a direction to the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in his service along with all the consequential benefits from 30.11.99.
2. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Borkotoki, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Barua, learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. The succinct fact of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner was an employee of the State Bank of India before he was dismissed from service. While the petitioner was serving as an Assistant (Cash and Accounts), by a memorandum dated 19.5.99 the petitioner was asked to submit his show cause why the disciplinary proceeding should not be initiated against him for the charges which reads as follows:
Smt. Jyoti Borah, a teacher, deposited at the Bank her monthly salary bill for Rs.3032/- for the month of January, 1997 on 04.02.97 for payment. The proceeds of the bill was to be credited by her savings Bank account maintained with Jorhat Branch. After the bill was paid on 04.02.97, the proceeds could not be credited to her S.B. Account for want of correct account number. Instead a Bankers Cheque No. 316047 was issued on 04.02.97, for Rs.3032/- favouring Smt. Jyoti Borah. Subsequently, the Bankers Cheque was fraudulently encashed on 18.07.97. After verification of her S.B. account, Smti. Jyoti Borah lodged a complaint with the Bank regarding non credit of her salary bill of Rs.3032/- into her S.B. account.
You surreptitiously obtained the Bankers Cheque and forged the signature of Smt. Jyoti Borah, the payee on the reverse of the Bankers Cheque. Though the signature did not tally with the recorded one you authenticated the endorsement of the payee through your remark on the back of the instrument as signature of Smt. J. Borah is verified by me. Thereafter the Bankers Cheque was encashed from the teller Counter on 18.07.97. Thus it is evident that you misappropriated customer's money by adopting unfair practice for your own benefit.
Moreover, you did not submit your explanation in reply to Jorhat Branch Memo No. CM/42/164 dated 30.07.98 despite reminder. Your such acts amount to gross misconduct and insubordination on your part.
4. In response to the memorandum dated 19.5.99 the petitioner submitted his show-cause reply admitting that he authenticated the alleged signature of Smti. Jyoti Borah appearing in the Bankers Cheque. In his show cause statement, the petitioner stated that as Smti. Jyoti Borah was known to him for quite a long period he signed on the reverse side of the cheque about the authority of the signature of Smti. J. Borah just to help her as he used to do so in other known customers. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the same date on which the petitioner had submitted his reply to the charge sheet, under order of the Assistant General Manager, Region No. 1 (Disciplinary Authority) dated 28.6.99.
5. The Full Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for the said charge. In the departmental enquiry the petitioner was given all opportunities to defend his case. The prosecution witnesses were also examined in his presence and he was also given the chance
