Back
2010 Supreme(Ker) 280
High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
Balagopalan
Versus
Syndicate Bank
W.A.No.2394 of 2007
Decided On : 09-04-2010
For the Appellant:Kappilil Anil Kumar, Jasmin Salim, Advocates. For the Respondent:M.P. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
The court established that the imposition of penalties for the same set of allegations did not amount to double jeopardy, and non-supply of documents did not cause prejudice. It also clarified that judicial review of punishments in a domestic enquiry is permissible only if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate.
Headnote:
Double Jeopardy - Bank Officer Misconduct - State Bank of India & Ors. V. Bela Bagchi & Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 435 - Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - Cl.7(3) - Abdul Karim v. Canara Bank (1997 (1) KLT 521) - Sankaran Nair v. K.S.S.I.D. Corporation Ltd. (2005 (2) KLT 245)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a bank branch manager, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized transactions and financial loss to the bank. He challenged the imposition of compulsory retirement and recovery of financial loss as double jeopardy, non-supply of documents, and disproportionate punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's actions caused financial loss to the bank, and the penalties imposed were not shockingly disproportionate. The court upheld the disciplinary proceedings and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Double jeopardy, non-supply of documents, proportionality of punishment
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the imposition of penalties for the same set of allegations did not amount to double jeopardy. It also ruled that non-supply of documents did not cause prejudice, and the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits.
C.T. Ravikumar, J.
The appellant herein was the petitioner and the respondents herein were the respondents in O.P.No.20260 of 2000. The said Original Petition was filed by the appellant challenging Exts.P1, P3, P5, P7, P10, P11 and P13 and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits.
2. Ext.P1 is the memo of charges dated 14.2.2000 issued by the first respondent initiating proceedings for imposition of a minor penalty against the appellant/petitioner. Ext.P7 is the memo of charges dated 9.8.1999 issued by the first respondent initiating proceedings for imposing a major penalty against the appellant/petitioner. A mere perusal of Exts.P1 and P7 would reveal that they were issued based on the same set of charges. The allegations based on which Exts.P1 and P7 were issued to the appellant/petitioner pertain to the period between 25.4.1994 and 22.8.1998 during which, he was functioning as the Branch Manager, Melmuri Branch of the Syndicate Bank. The disciplinary proceedings initiated as per Exts.P1 and P7 culminated in an order directing recovery of loss to the tune of Rs.1,01,980/- and a penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the appellant as per Ext.P11 order and the appeal preferred against the same was rejected as per Ext.P13. The proceedings initiated as per Ext.P1 culminated in Ext.P3 order whereby the aforesaid amount, being the financial loss by way of seepage of income caused to the bank on account of the transaction carried out by the appellant, was ordered to be recovered from him. The appeal preferred against Ext.P1 was rejected as per Ext.P6. It was challenging the aforesaid orders that the Original Petition was filed.
The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the Original Petition. Hence, this appeal.
3. We heard Sri. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. M.P. Ashok Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Virtually, both the appellant and the respondents reiterated before us the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge.
4. In the context of the contentions, it is relevant to look into the charges leveled against the appellant/petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P7. The articles of charge issued against the appellant as per Ext.P7 reads thus:
“That you were functioning as Branch Manager at Melmuri branch, Palakkad during the period between 25.4.94 and 22.8.98 and while functioning in your position as such, you by abusing your official position debited UCB, arranged LDs, discounted Dds, transferred/adjusted amounts from one account to another account in blatant violation of Bank’s rules/banking norms and accommodated the parties concerned and in the process you derived/caused others to derive undue pecuniary benefits at the cost of the Bank/customers besides exposing the Bank to the risk of financial loss”.
The details of the transactions and the irregularity alleged to have been committed by the appellant/petitioner are described in detail in the statement of imputations of misconduct appended along with the articles of charge. Based on the same set of transactions and irregularities, steps were initiated to recover the loss caused to the bank by way of seepage of income and Ext.P1 is the memo of charge pertaining to the same. As per Ext.P1, the appellant/petitioner was required to submit his written statement of defence showing cause as to why appropriate penalty should not be imposed on him. As noticed hereinbefore, as per Ext.P7, a major penalty was proposed to be imposed on the appellant and as per Ext.P1, a minor penalty was proposed to be imposed on him.
5. The appellant assailed the orders on various grounds. According to him, imposition of two penalties, viz. compulsory retirement from service and recovery of loss to the tune of Rs.1,01,980/- on the same set of allegations amo
