Jagadish Chandra Brahma, S/O. Lt. Daya Ram Brahma vs UCO Bank and A Body Corporate Having Its Head

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Gau) 871

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.
Jagadish Chandra Brahma, S/O. Lt. Daya Ram Brahma – Petitioner
Versus
UCO Bank and A Body Corporate Having Its Head And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/4982/2018
Decided On : 24-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N Nath
For the Respondent: Mr M Sarma (SC)

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 21 – Railway Rules of 1968 – Rule 9 – Petitioner who was a Senior Manager at Kokrajhar Branch was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding issued by disciplinary authority being Assistant General Manager – Charges against petitioner were that while he was Branch Head in Sakti Ashram Branch of Bank had credited certain loan proceeds in Saving Bank Accounts of borrowers – Loan amount was transferred into his own Saving Bank Account and Staff Overdraft Account – Held, Court have noticed that appellate authority firstly takes note that no new facts were brought in by petitioner other than what has been considered by disciplinary authority – Appeal no requirement to bring in any new fact appellate authority is required to decide whether findings are justified on materials made available before such authority and whether reasons given are acceptable in law – Secondly Clause 17 clearly lays down requirement of appellate authority to consider whether findings are justified and or penalty is excessive or inadequate aforesaid extraction of order of appellate authority does not in any manner give any indication that appellate authority had applied its mind as to whether findings are justified and or as to whether penalty was excessive or inadequate – Writ petition stands partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. N Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D K Das, learned counsel for the respondents in the UCO Bank.

2. The petitioner who was a Senior Manager at Kokrajhar Branch was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding as per the show-cause notice dated 08.10.2015 issued by the disciplinary authority being the Assistant General Manager and Zonal Head. Amongst others, the charges against the petitioner were that while he was the Branch Head in the Sakti Ashram Branch of the Bank, he had credited certain loan proceeds in the Saving Bank Accounts of the borrowers and thereafter, the loan amount was transferred into his own Saving Bank Account and Staff Overdraft Account.

3. In other words, the meaning and purport of the charge is that the petitioner taking the advantage of being the Head of the Branch had credited certain amounts in the form of loans to the Saving Bank Accounts of some borrowers of the bank and thereafter, the loan amounts were transferred back to his Saving Bank Account for his own purpose meaning thereby that it was a charge of misappropriation of bank’s money as well as an act by which the bank may lose faith upon its employee.

4. In the aforesaid proceeding, the petitioner was also placed under suspension by the order dated 01.08.2015. In the inquiry proceeding Sri Dipak Kalita, a retired Chief Manager of the Bank was appointed as an Inquiring Officer to inquire to the charges and the appointment of the Inquiry Officer was intimated to the petitioner as per the communication dated 27.10.2016 of the Zonal Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority.

5. Be that as it may, the inquiry was completed resulting in the inquiry report dated 18.03.2017. The inquiry report was acted upon by the disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings thereof and the petitioner delinquent was also provided with the copy of the inquiry report and his objection was invited to the report.

6. In the aforesaid process, the order dated 12.12.2017 was passed by the disciplinary authority by which the petitioner was dismissed from service.

7. As provided under Clause 17 of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short, the Regulations of 1976) the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 23.01.2018 before the General Manager being the appellate authority. The appellate authority in consideration of the appeal passed the order dated 18.05.2018 whereby it arrived at its conclusion that the petitioner delinquent had not brought any new facts other than what had already been considered in the inquiry and by the disciplinary authority and accordingly, the order of penalty was upheld.

8. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted.

9. One of the grounds urged upon by Mr. N Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ proceeding is that Sri Dipak Kalita, retired Chief Manager who was appointed as the Inquiry Authority is not a public servant as defined under Clause 3(n) of the Regulations of 1976. Mr. N Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the definition of public servant as provided in Clause 3(n) of the Regulations of 1976 raises the contention that as per the said definition the expression public servant would have the same meaning that of a public servant as provided in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.

10. A further contention is raised by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Ravi Malik v. National Film Development Corpn. Ltd. and others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 427 wherein while interpreting Clause 23(b) of the Regulations known as Service Rules and Regulations, 1982, which provides that the disciplinary authority may inquire into any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against an employee either by itself or appoint any public servant, where in that case a retired Judge of the City Civil Court was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, had interpreted the expression public servant to mean that it would not include a ret