IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Narayan Mishra - Appellant
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank and Others - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 2 of 1999
Decided On : 13-05-2019
Misconduct - Service Dismissal - Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976 - Regulation 3.1, 3.3, 24
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff appealed against a suit for declaration that the enquiry report and the order of dismissal from service are void. The plaintiff was appointed as a Probationary Officer in the Indian Overseas Bank and was placed under suspension due to various charges of misconduct.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the enquiry was conducted fairly and the suit for specific performance of contract for personal service is not maintainable. The appeal was eventually dismissed.
Issues: The substantial questions of law included the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit, the appointment of a presenting officer, and the proportionality of the punishment of dismissal to the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The civil court does not have jurisdiction to grant relief of reinstatement as it would enforce the contract of personal service. The charges were specific and the plaintiff participated in the enquiry, thus no prejudice was caused to him.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merits.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. RATH, J.
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against confirming judgment in a suit for declaration that the enquiry report as well as the order of dismissal from service is void, non-existent and he is deemed to be continuing in service.
2. The plaintiff was appointed as a Probationary Officer in the Indian Overseas Bank, Rayagada (Bank) on 15.4.1975. He was deputed as a Manager, Puri Gramya Bank. While functioning as the Manager, Sahidnagar Branch, he was placed under suspension on 9.5.1983. The following charges were framed against him for certain acts of omission and commission.
You had contravened Regulation 3.1 and 3.3 of Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976 a breach of which would amount to a misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 thereof. The said regulations are extracted below:
3.1 : Every Officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer.
3.3 : No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, at otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior.
24 : Any breach of any of the provisions of these Regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Indian Overseas Bank (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976.
STATEMET OF IMPUTATIONS:
1. that you had opened a Saving Bank account bearing No.2699 at our Sahid Nagar branch in the joint names of Mr. Gour Goswami and yourself on 7.12.1982; and
(a) that five withdrawal slips for an aggregate sum of Rs.51,360/- paid on different dates on the above account have been subsequently torn-off and fresh withdrawal slips written by you and passed for payment by yourself without affixing the 'Cash Paid' stamp have been substituted in the place of the originals by stapling to the vouchers and that the substitutions have been done after commencement of short inspection; and
(b) that you had also cut-off your name in the Savings Bank account opening form and in the Savings Bank ledger; and
(c) that you were also in possession of the pass book of the Savings Bank account No.2699 wherein also your name has been found cut-off, and
(d) that initially you were reported to have said that the voucher bundle of the day wherein the impugned vouchers were missing was not traceable/missing and later on the voucher bundle was found in your cupboard itself.
2. (a) that you had granted overdrafts for in excess of your discretion and without reporting to Regional Office and without submitting the monthly return of overdrafts under Manager's discretion to regional Office/Central Office vide Annexure-I.
(b) The following irregularities are also noticed :
(i) Temporary Overdrafts were allowed indiscriminately far in excess of branch discretion and beyond the repayment capacity of the borrowers.
(ii) The required market report, credit cum opinion sheets and declaration were not obtained in respect of the overdrafts granted.
(iii) Temporary Overdrafts were allowed on the very name day of opening the account. In most of the cases current accounts have been opened without the initial cash deposits as required under the rules/procedure.
(iv) Huge excesses were allowed totally ignoring the bank's interest and without obtaining any security to safeguard bank's interest.
(v) TOD parties were also granted Small Loans/Personal Loans vide SL No.13/83 granted to Sri Gagan Behari Das, which is against the norms.
(vi) Most of the accounts where TODs had been allowed were introduced by you.
3. (a) that you had discounted two instruments from one Sri L.N. Agarwal under reference No.DBP(1)-24/82 for Rs.5,000/- and (2) 25/82 for Rs.25,000/- on 21.9.82
Akola Electric Supply Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. J.N. Jarare and Others
Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C.Kakar
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik
Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corpn., Lucknow Vs. Chandra Kiran Tyagi
Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Others Vs. Lakshmi Narain and Others
Indian Airlines Corporation Vs. Sukhdeo Rai
Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.