Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Jamini Talukdar S/O Late Tarini Charan Talukdar – Petitioner
Versus
The State Bank Of India, Represented By The Assistant General Manager And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/1736 of 2012
Decided On : 20-04-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 408, 468, 471 – Service Laws – Gross Misconduct – Dismissal of Services – Memorandum of Settlement – Petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order, by which he has been dismissed from service by State Bank of India – Petitioner's case in brief is that petitioner was appointed as a Computer Operator with SBI which was re-designated as Senior Assistant – He thereafter availed a loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for purpose of constructing a house – Thereafter an additional loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was taken by petitioner – Petitioner however did not construct house and due to same, a departmental proceeding was initiated against petitioner – In departmental proceeding/Enquiry initiated against petitioner, Inquiry Officer in his enquiry report held that all charges leveled against petitioner had been proved, as petitioner had admitted to all allegations leveled against him – Petitioner was "dismissed without notice" as per provision of Clause 6(a) of Memorandum of Settlement of Disciplinary Action and Procedures for Workmen vide Memorandum issued by Disciplinary Authority and Assistant General Manager (Admn.) – Petitioner filed an Appeal against penalty order and same was rejected by Appellate Authority vide Memorandum – P.S. Case under Section 408/468/471 of IPC was transferred to Tezpur P.S. vide order – On receipt of same it was reregistered as Tezpur P.S. Case – Petitioner was acquitted by Court ofJudicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tezpur vide order passed in G.R. Case – Petitioner being aggrieved by his dismissal from service has made a challenge to impugned Memorandum and Memorandum on ground that charges framed against petitioner do not come within scope/provisions of gross mis-conduct as defined in paragraph 5(d), 5(j) and 5(m) of Memorandum of Settlement of Disciplinary Action and Procedures for Workmen.
Finding of the court : Very fact that petitioner has taken loan for building a house by submitting a false bills/receipts clearly shows that the act done by petitioner is prejudicial to the interest of the bank and that he has knowingly made a false statement and documents – Though misconduct of petitioner is relatable to loan taken by petitioner, petitioner being a bank employee is still bound by memorandum of settlement, which requires that he should maintain absolute integrity and honestly in his conduct with bank – As such, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity with decision of the respondents that petitioner has committed gross misconduct. – In banking business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular Bank Officer – Above being said, this Court finds that act of petitioner in taking a loan on a false claim, while knowing that he was not going to construct a house of his own from very beginning, shows that petitioner has not been honest in his dealings with his employer bank – Petitioner has not shown absolute devotion and integrity to bank, which in turn would be detrimental to interest of bank, as he is untrustworthy and lacks integrity – If petitioner is untrustworthy and lacks integrity, there is every likelihood that his working in bank would not be above board, which would in turn affect confidence of public and depositors, who park their hard earned money in banks – Court finds no merit in writ petition.
Result : Writ Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents assisted by Mr. H. Buragohain, Advocate.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.04.2010, by which he has been dismissed from service by the State Bank of India (for short SBI). The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as a Computer Operator with the SBI which was re-designated as Senior Assistant. He thereafter availed a loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/-for the purpose of constructing a house. Thereafter an additional loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/-was taken by the petitioner. The petitioner however did not construct the house and due to the same, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.
3. When the respondents came to learn that the petitioner had not utilized the loan amount for which it had been sanctioned, an FIR dated 01.09.2008 was submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Panbazar stating that the petitioner had submitted fake receipts showing purchase of raw materials and other expenditures as proof of construction, though no construction had been carried out by the petitioner. As such, the petitioner was cheating the respondent bank. In pursuant to the FIR, Panbazar P.S. Case No.355/2008 dated 18.09.2008 was registered.
4. Subsequent to the above, the respondent bank issued a show-cause notice dated 06.10.2009 to the petitioner, asking him to submit his written explanation to the four allegations (charges) that had been set out in the show-cause notice, as his act of omission and commission fell within the ambit of “gross misconduct”, as defined in paragraph 5(d), 5(j) and 5(m) of the Memorandum of Settlement of the Disciplinary Action and Procedures for Workmen dated 10.04.2002. The four allegations are extracted hereinbelow :
You were sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.1,50,000/-by the Bank on 25.07.1994 for construction of a house at village Bamunichuburi (Mazgaon), Mouza Bahairabpad, Tezpur. Our Tezpur Branch disbursed the loan amounts in phased manner as follows :
(i) Rs.35,000/-vide your request letter dated 24/11/1994
(ii) Rs.40,000/- vide your request letter dated 27/03/1995
(iii) Rs.40,000/- vide your request letter dated 03/04/1997
(iv) Rs.35,000/- vide your request letter dated 14/07/1997
It is observed that you did not construct the house and misutilized the entire loan amount.
Allegation –II:
To obtain the release of the loan installments as per allegation-I, you had submitted fake receipts showing purchase of raw materials, other expenditures as proof of construction.
Allegation –III:
An additional housing loan of Rs.1,50,000/- was also sanctioned to you on 31.10.1997 at your request to meet shortfall for completing the house. The amount of loan was disbursed by our Tezpur Branch in phased manner as follows :
(i) Rs.50,000/-vide your request letter dated 16.01.1998
(ii) Rs.50,000/- vide your request letter dated 27.02.1998
(iii) Rs.50,000/- vide your request letter dated 03.10.1998
Here also it is observed that you did not utilize the amount in constructing your house and misutilized the entire loan amount.
Allegation –IV:
To obtain the release of the loan installments as per allegation-III, you had submitted fake receipts showing purchase of raw materials, other expenditures as proof of construction.”
5. The petitioner thereafter submitted his reply dated 14.10.2009 to the show-cause notice dated 06.10.2009 admitting that he knew that he was not going to construct a house at that time he asked for the loan. He also submitted that he was ready to settle all his liabilities in an amicable way. However, after purchasing land, the left over loan amount was used by the petitioner to build a small room in the house of his mother.
6. In the departmental proceeding/Enquiry initiated against the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer in his enquiry report held that all the charges leveled against the petitioner had been p
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
