SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(All) 1265

[2012(5) ADJ 772 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
ASHOK KUMAR DUTTA ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11446 of 2009, decided on 11th May, 2012)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Ashok Khare and Siddharth Khare for the Petitioner; A.B. Saran and Maneesh Mehrotra for the Respondents.

Headnote:Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976—Regulations 4(j) and 12(i)(a)—Indian Overseas Bank Officers Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976—Regulations 3(1) and 3(3)—Misconduct—Disciplinary proceedings—Imposition of penalty of dismissal from service—Challenge against—Alleged allegation against the petitioner has been proved that the transactions entered into by petitioner by issuing banker's cheques after debiting suspense account of the bank and the purchase of cheques was without authority and that there were Overdues in the accounts, which had become non-performing assets—Bank officers have to strictly adhere to norms of Bank—As such amounts have become difficult to recover as they were also not backed up with sufficient security—If findings are supported by some evidence, which is cogent, admissible and reliable, High Court would not re-appreciate the evidence to come to an independent finding—Role of High Court is confined to find out the procedural fairness in enquiry—Taking into account the gross misconduct, in violating the norms of Bank in issuing Banker’s Cheques by debiting suspense account and purchasing cheques, Jeopardising the interest of bank—Thus, punishment of dismissal not disproportionate to charges—Petition partly allowed to the extent that petitioner will be entitled to subsistence allowance equal to one-half of his basic pay after three months of his suspension upto 22.8.2008, when he was dismissed from service—Direction issued. [Paras 31 to 40]

       

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner. Shri A.B. Saran, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Maneesh Mehrotra appears for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 22.8.2008 passed by the Deputy General Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai, awarding the penalty of ‘dismissal’ in terms of Regulation 4 (j) of Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short, the Regulations of 1976), with a further order that the period spent by him under suspension shall not be treated as one spent on duty and which will not be counted for monetary or any other benefits other than subsistence allowance already paid to him; and the appellate order in respect of the charge sheet issued on 17.8.2008 and various supplementary appeals filed against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.8.2008, by which the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits, continuity in service, seniority and arrears of salary for the suspension period.

3. Brief facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed in respondent-bank as a Clerk in February, 1977. In the year 1982 he was promoted as Officer, Junior Management Grade-I and was thereafter promoted as Officer, Junior Management Grade-II. In the year 2002, the petitioner was granted promotion as Officer Middle Management Grade III and was posted as Senior Manager at Varanasi Contonment Branch, where he served from 31.1.2003 to 30.9.2006, and was thereafter transferred to Mathura. Before the petitioner could join at Mathura, he was placed under suspension on 6.10.2006 by the Deputy General Manager in contemplation of departmental proceedings in exercise of the powers under Regulation 12 (i) (a) of the Regulations of 1976. A departmental charge sheet was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy General Manager on 17.8.2007, alleging misconduct covered by Regulations 3 (1) and 3 (3) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. The allegations in the charge sheet related to the period of work, when the petitioner was posted at Varanasi Contonment Branch.

4. The charge sheet dated 17.8.2007 served upon the petitioner levelled 30 imputations constituting misconduct punishable under the Regulations of 1976 calling upon him to give a reply. A summary of the imputations, vis-a-vis the customers and the nature of the allegations contained in the imputations, is given as below :

(i) Charges No. 1 to 6 levelled allegation against the petitioner with regard to dealings with a partnership firm namely M/s Shiva Distributors of irregular sanction of Cash Credit Limite, irregular issuance of bankers cheque, irregular debiting from account of M/s Shiva Distributors, purchase of cheques on behalf of M/s Shiva Distributors for different amount.

(ii) Charges No. 7 to 11 - levelled allegations with regard to transaction entered into by the bank with M/s Vijay Telecom and its Proprietor Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal. The allegations included irregular grant of TOD, irregular sanction of Cash Credit limit, issuance of Bankers cheque on behalf of M/s Vijay Telecom without receiving amount covered by such bankers cheque, irregular advances of Housing Loan to Vijay Jaiswal and Smt. Jaishree Jaiwal and irregular advance towards purchase of a vehicle by Vijay Jaiswal.

(iii) Charges No. 12 to 16 - levelled allegation against the petitioner with regard to various transaction entered into by the bank with M/s Vinayak Distributor and its Proprietor Rishi Mohan. The allegation included wrongful sanction of cash credit limit indiscriminate purchase of cheques, issuance of bankers cheque without receiving money and irregular advance of vehicle loan.

(iv) Charge No. 17 pertain to irregular sanction of cash credi





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top