IMPORTANT POINT
The seriousness of misappropriation of public money and the fiduciary duty of a Bank employee require a strict approach, and the refund of misappropriated amount after a considerable time does not absolve the delinquent of the charges.

JUDGMENT :

The initiation of a disciplinary proceeding which has culminated in an order of penalty of dismissal from service dated 30.12.2013 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The attempt of the petitioner to have his grievances redressed by approaching the appellate authority in the Bank had also not yielded any favorable result as his appeal was rejected on 03.04.2014. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The facts, bereft of details are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the erstwhile Cachar Gramin Vikas Bank which has subsequently merged and became the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (hereinafter the Bank). In discharge of his duties, in connection with a misconduct on 25.07.2011, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending drawl on a departmental proceeding. The same was followed by a show-cause notice dated 24.08.2011 which had three charges. All the three charges relate to misappropriation of Bank money of various amounts. The show-cause notice was replied to by the petitioner and thereafter a memorandum of charge was issued on 11.04.2012 which was also replied to by the petitioner denying the charges. On such denial, an enquiry was initiated. In the said inquiry, three numbers of witnesses were produced by the Bank and after submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued a second show-cause notice on 12.09.2013 which he had replied. The respondent – Bank had thereafter issued another notice on 20.11.2013 on the proposed penalty which was also replied to by the petitioner, whereafter vide the impugned order dated 30.12.2013, the petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of dismissal from service. As indicated above, the departmental appeal was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.04.2014.

3. I have heard Shri KR Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the respondent – Bank and its officers are is represented by Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Mochahari, learned counsel.

4. Shri Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the enquiry suffers from procedural irregularities as no effective opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses were given to him. The request of the petitioner to have assistance from a legal practitioner was also rejected. Apart from the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel has submitted that along with the petitioner, three other Officers of the Bank were also charged on the same allegations and in this regard, no common enquiry was held. By drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Assam Gramin Vikas Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2010, more specifically Regulation 42 thereof, the learned counsel has submitted that a common enquiry is prescribed when two officers in different grades or an officer and employee are involved jointly in an incident and the disciplinary proceedings are sought to be instituted. It is submitted that admittedly in the instant case, no such procedure was adopted and thereby entire proceeding against the petitioner would stand vitiated.

5. With regard to the merits of the allegations, it is submitted that the instruments in question (cheques) were issued by other officers which also bear their signatures and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of any misconduct. It is also submitted that the amount in question was refunded by the petitioner and therefore the respondent – Bank did not suffer any loss.

6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following case laws-

i. (1998) 2 SCC 407 [Director General of Police and Ors. Vs. G. Dasayan].

ii. (2008) 2 SCC 74 [Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.]

iii. 2009 (2) GLT 1 [Amaresh Narayan Chowdhury Vs. United Bank of India.

iv. Order dated 26.08.2015 passed in WP(C)/595/2009 [Nipun Rajbongshi Vs. Union of India and Ors.]

7. The case of G. D