The importance of trust and integrity in the banking sector and the court's limited scope for interference in the imposition of penalties on bank employees.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. Proportionality of the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is the subject matter of dispute raised in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner while he was serving as Cash-cum-General Clerk at Dhekial Branch of the United Bank of India was charge sheeted by a letter dated May 4, 2001. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are as follows:

"You were working as Cash-cum-General Clerk at Bank's Dhekial Branch during the period from November 10, 1992 to June 8, 2000. On April 6, 1998, you had fraudulently credited a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 to your S.B. Account No. 600 with Dhekial Branch as "by HBL" in connivance with Shri Binay Barman Sangma, Manager of the Branch who authenticated the said entry. You have also entered an identical amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 in the Day's Sub-Cash Book under the head "Demand Loan" without creating any corresponding Loan Account, to suppress your above fraudulent entry, in Branch Day's Accounts, for your personal gain and purpose. You withdrew and misappropriated the said amount on different dates for your personal gains and purposes.

On May 4, 1998, you fraudulently credited a sum of Rs.50,000.00 to your S.B. Account No. 600 with Dhekial Branch as "by HBL" through a voucher prepared by you and signed by Shri Binay Barman Sangma, Manager. You have also entered an identical amount of Rs.50,000.00 in the Day's Sub-Cash Book under the "Demand Loan" without creating any corresponding Loan Account, to suppress your above fraudulent entry, for your personal gain and purpose. You withdrew and misappropriated the said amount on different dates for your personal gains and purposes.

You have applied for a third time HBL for Rs.2,44,300.00 making a false undated declaration regarding non availment of any HBL earlier from the Bank when you have availed first time HBL for Rs.43,700.00 on June 1, 1984 and second time HBL for Rs.12,000.00 on August 3, 1988 sanctioned by HO. On June 16, 1998, you had availed of the so-called above third time HBL for Rs.2,44,300.00 after getting sanctioned by Shri Binay Barman Sangma, Manager of the Branch in complete violation of Bank's rule by creating another HBL A/C in your name and crediting Rs.1,50,000.00 to Demand Loan Account for adjustment of your fraudulent credit entries for Rs.1,00,000.00 and Rs.50,000.00 on April 6, 1998 and May 4, 1998, respectively in the Day's Sub-Cash Book and also depositing Rs.94,300.00 to your S.B. Account No. 600. Thus, for your above acts, Bank has been exposed to a financial loss for Rs.2,44,300.00 along with upto date interest thereon.

You are, therefore, charged for having committed gross misconduct which reads as follows:

"Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss." Clause 19.5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated October 19, 1966.

You are hereby directed to submit your explanation in writing within ten days from receipt of this letter as to why appropriate disciplinary action shall not be initiated against you. Should you fail to submit your explanation in writing as stated above, it will be presumed that you have nothing to offer and in that case the Bank shall reserve the right to take action against you as per rules in force."

3. The petitioner responding to the said charge sheet submitted his reply and the disciplinary authority of the Bank being not satisfied with the reply furnished by the petitioner, conducted a regular enquiry, on completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry officer submitted his report on June 21, 2002 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. However, in the report it was observed that there was no financial loss to the Bank:

4. The petitioner was furnished with the copy of the enquiry report asking him to submit his representation, which he accordingly did. Thereafter by the impugned order dated November 25/December 3, 2002, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty