IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
AJIT SINGH And MANOJIT BHUYAN, JJ.
Shri Indra Mohan Pator, S/o. Shri Mahesh Chandra Pator - Appellant
Versus
United Bank of India - Respondent
WA 172/2014
Decided On : 15-03-2017
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) - United Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 - Regulation 4(h) and 6 - Suspension - Misconduct in contemplation of drawal of disciplinary proceeding - Acts of fraud - Manipulation of records - On Articles of Charges was issued together with Statement of Allegations on which charges were based - As many as 11(eleven) charges were framed pertaining to act of defrauding Bank in connivance with one a bank employee causing and exposing Bank to financial risk and loss - Manipulation of records prejudicial to the interest of Bank - Acting in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer misappropriation of money for personal gain - Appellant made a short reply denying charges and expressing his astonishment of being roped in when acts of fraud had been committed - He pleaded exoneration from charges leveled - Office Order dated came to be issued for holding a departmental enquiry into charges and an Enquiry Officer was appointed - Control sheet which facilitated to post fake withdrawal slips and prepare a concocted ledger sheet destroying original sheet in SB a/c 6335 passed all but two withdrawals deliberately overlooking that no pass book accompanied withdrawal slips - Thus connived with to defraud bank to the extent – Held ,In a departmental proceeding what chiefly operates in mind of disciplinary authority ischarge relating to misconduct, enforcement of discipline and the level of integrity demonstrated by the delinquent - Standard of proof is also different than that required in a criminal case - Acquittal in criminal case is not determinative of commission of misconduct or otherwise and it is open to authorities to proceed with disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in criminal case - It per se would not entitle the delinquent to claim immunity from the proceedings - At most, factum of acquittal may be a circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment - It would certainly depend upon facts of each case and cannot have universal application - Perhaps, extreme punishment of dismissal from service was not inflicted on this ground - From discussion above, Court are unable to hold contention of appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, order compulsorily retiring him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside - If it is a case of loss of confidence in officer by the Bank, it would not be in scheme of things for this Court to embark upon an exercise of judicial review to interfere with decision of disciplinary authority and to direct Bank to take back officer in whom the Bank has lost confidence - Appeal being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed.
Manojit Bhuyan, J.
At the relevant time, the appellant/petitioner Indra Mohan Pator was serving as the Deputy Manager, United Bank of India and posted at Demow-Chariali Branch under Sivasagar Regional Office. On 04.08.1995 he was placed under suspension for alleged misconduct in contemplation of drawal of disciplinary proceeding. On 12.09.1996 the Articles of Charges was issued together with the Statement of Allegations on which the charges were based. As many as 11(eleven) charges were framed pertaining to act of defrauding the Bank in connivance with one Shah Jamal Ali, a bank employee; causing and exposing the Bank to financial risk and loss; manipulation of records prejudicial to the interest of the Bank; acting in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer; misappropriation of money for personal gain etc. On the alleged act of misconduct/irregularities, the appellant was asked to submit his written statement of defence. On 01.11.1996 the appellant made a short reply denying the charges and expressing his astonishment of being roped in when the acts of fraud had been committed by Shah Jamal Ali. He pleaded exoneration from the charges leveled. The Office Order dated 13.11.1996 came to be issued for holding a departmental enquiry into the charges and an Enquiry Officer was appointed under Regulation 6 of the United Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter called the ‘Regulations’).
2. The ingredients of the charges, which were the subject-matter of enquiry, were as follows:
“Charge No. 1: Shri Pator opened SB a/c No. 8028 in the name of Smt. Champa Sahu, a fake person, violating bank’s rule.
Charge No. 2: Shri Pator passed withdrawals and debit voucher in the SB a/c No. 8028 deliberately overlooking unauthorized and fraudulent credit entries in the a/c.
Charge No. 3: Shri Pator connived with Shri S.J. Ali, CCG, and allowed Shri Ali to work in SB ledger No. 23 without any formal office order which helped/facilitated Shri Ali to make 2 fictitious and fraudulent credit entries in the SB a/c No. 8028 of Champa Sahu.
Charge No.4: Shri Pator connived with Shri S.J. Ali and allowed him to work in SB ledger No. 19 without any formal office order. Shri Pator also allowed Shri S.J. Ali free access to SB ledger control sheet which facilitated Shri Ali to post fake withdrawal slips and prepare a concocted ledger sheet destroying the original sheet in SB a/c 6335, Shri Pator passed all but two withdrawals deliberately overlooking that no pass book accompanied the withdrawal slips. Thus Shri Pator connived with Shri Ali to defraud the bank to the extent of Rs.3,45,900.00.
Charge No. 5: Shri Pator connived with S.J. Ali, CCGC, to allow him to work in SB ledger No. 2, inspite of Office order No. 32/94 dt. 17.10.1994 to work as Head Cashier till 06.11.1994 and thus facilitated Shri Ali to materially alter/manipulate the balances in SB a/c No. 974 of Shri A.C. Dey. He was also given free access to SB ledger control sheets. Shri Pator passed the cheques drawn on the a/c deliberately overlooking the material alteration /manipulation and thus connived to defraud the bank.
Charge No.6: Shri Pator connived with Shri S.J. Ali irregularly to work in SB ledger No. 2 and post cheques in SB ledger No. 2 materially altering the balance in the a/c. Shri Pator intentionally and motivatedly passed those cheques in SB a/c No. 974 and thus provided undue financial benefit to the customer at the expense of the bank.
Charge No. 7: Shri Pator factitiously debited cheque purchase a/c and irregularly and fraudulently credited to SB a/c No. 7861 of Shri J. Borah. Vouchers were prepared and singly signed by him. Further, Shri Pator irregularly and fraudulently transferred Rs.25,000/- on different dates to his own SB a/c No. 7664 for his personal gains and purposes exposing the bank to financial risk/likely loss.
Charge No. 8: Shri Pator manipulated bank’s book of record by increasing Assam Pension Receivable debit v
Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra
Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Srinath Gupta
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors.
Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar
State of U.P. v. Nand Kishore Shukla
ADM (City) v. Prabhakar Chaturvedi
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.