Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
Sri Surendra Nath Barman, Son of Late Nalit Chandra Barman – Appellant
Versus
The Assam Gramin Vikash Bank – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 5287 of 2012
Decided on : 21-02-2024
Fraud - Employment Dispute - Assam Gramin Vikash Bank - Regulations 17, 19, 38.11(b) - The petitioner, a Messenger at the bank, was alleged to have opened a RIPC account without depositing any amount, leading to a loss of Rs. 53,593. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved, and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner challenged the proceedings, alleging violation of natural justice and lack of evidence. The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in compliance with regulations and principles of natural justice. The court also noted that the petitioner's admission of withdrawing the amount without depositing it. However, considering the nature of the petitioner's role and the fact that the shortfall amount was adjusted and repaid, the court modified the penalty to compulsory retirement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Messenger at Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, was alleged to have opened a RIPC account without depositing any amount, leading to a loss of Rs. 53,593. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved, and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner challenged the proceedings, alleging violation of natural justice and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in compliance with regulations and principles of natural justice. The court also noted the petitioner's admission of withdrawing the amount without depositing it. However, considering the nature of the petitioner's role and the fact that the shortfall amount was adjusted and repaid, the court modified the penalty to compulsory retirement.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, lack of evidence, appropriateness of penalty
Ratio Decidendi: The disciplinary proceedings were conducted in compliance with regulations and principles of natural justice. The petitioner's admission of withdrawing the amount without depositing it was noted. However, considering the nature of the petitioner's role and the fact that the shortfall amount was adjusted and repaid, the penalty was modified to compulsory retirement.
Final Decision: The court modified the penalty imposed on the petitioner from removal from service to compulsory retirement.
JUDGMENT :
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 27.08.2008, Charge-sheet dated 30.06.2010, Enquiry Report dated 16.06.2011, Orders dated 07.10.2011, 02.12.2011 and 31.12.2011. The petitioner was employed as an Messenger under the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and was posted in the Kaithalkuchi Branch of the Bank. During the course of his service an allegation was made against the petitioner with regard to opening of Re-investment Plan Certificate Account (RIPC account). The allegation made against the petitioner was that the said account amounting to Rs 50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) was opened without depositing any amount in the said account. The further allegation was that the petitioner personally wrote the receipt bearing number 034923 and had personally made entries in the account opening register and the ledger. Accordingly, Show Cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he replied and thereafter, on the basis of the enquiry report submitted, the authorities passed the impugned order dated 02.11.2011 whereby the petitioner was imposed a major penalty of removal from service “which shall not be a disqualification for future employment”. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which also came to be dismissed on the ground that there is no merit for consideration of the appeal.
2. The pleaded case of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner during his service and while being posted in the Kaithalkuchi Branch of the Pragjyotish Gaolia Bank in his capacity as the Messenger of the bank, he has been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities and capacity without any qualms or blemish from any quarter. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the then Manager of the Kaithalkuchi Branch where the petitioner was posted, taking advantage of the faulty management policies of the bank, misappropriated depositors money and the petitioner was made a scapegoat in order to save the bank's image. The petitioner had applied before the Branch Manager for sanctioning loans in his favor for house repairing and other personal purposes on 02.02.2006 and 25.03.2006 respectively. The said loan was sanctioned by loan sanction letter bearing No. AGVB/KTCH/COD/03/06 dated 17.06.2006 sanctioning a loan amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only) in favour of the petitioner for Clean Over Draft (COD). Thereafter, by Sanction Letter bearing No. AGVB/KTCH/HR/02/06 dated 20.06.2006, the second loan amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) in favour of the petitioner for house repairing was also sanctioned. The petitioner on 20.11.2006 requested the then Branch Manager of the Branch to transfer an amount to Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) from his COD account maintained in the said Branch to a RIPC Account, which would fetch the petitioner an amount of Rs. 102,116/-(Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand One Hundred Sixteen Only) upon maturity over a period of eight years three months. Accordingly, RIPC bearing No. AGVB/RIPC:034923 against Account No. 1833 dated 20.11.2006 came to be issued in favor of the petitioner by the Branch Manager after transferring the requested amount. Since the petitioner was facing acute financial crisis, he was constrained to prematurely withdraw the aforesaid RIPC after a lapse of more than a year on 14.12.2007 upon which he received an amount of Rs. 53,593/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Three only). It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that after the withdrawal of the RIPC amount of Rs. 53,593/-(Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Three only), it was subsequently found out by the bank that the initial investment of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was not transferred to the RIPC account bearing No, 1833 in the name of the petitioner. The said fact came to be informed to the petitioner by another Senior Officer of the Bank. The said Officer
The court upheld the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed, but modified the penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement, considering the nature of the petitioner's role and....
The responsibility of the employee to maintain trust and the principles of natural justice were central to the court's decision.
Distinct allegations against employee charged in the same transaction would be justified being based on a valid classification and no perversity or arbitrariness can be alleged in the process.
Removal from Service - Committed irregularities - Procedure for imposing major penalties - Power of judicial review available to High Court as also to this Court under Constitution takes in its strid....
The importance of integrity and honesty in the banking sector, the purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer, and the compliance with the rules of natural justice in disciplinary enquiries.
The court established that in disciplinary proceedings, the principles of natural justice must be followed, but the court's role is limited to ensuring procedural fairness rather than re-evaluating t....
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
Disciplinary dismissal based on financial misconduct was set aside due to lack of fair process and the employee's prior acquittal in criminal proceedings regarding identical charges.
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
