IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Ravi Shanker Dwivedi – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 7342 of 2022
Decided On : 09-01-2024
Embezzlement - Disciplinary Proceedings - Major Penalty - [FACT OF THE CASE] The petitioner, a bank employee, was suspended pending inquiry into allegations of embezzlement of funds from two customers' accounts. The charge was based on unauthorized transactions/withdrawals in the customers' accounts, jeopardizing the bank's interest. The petitioner denied the charge, but the Inquiry Officer held it proved. The petitioner was then punished with compulsory retirement, which was affirmed on appeal. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The Court found that the inquiry was procedurally unfair as no witnesses were examined to prove the charge, and the petitioner's confession was not properly established. [ISSUES] The issues included the procedural fairness of the inquiry and the validity of the punishment. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The Court held that in cases involving major penalties, witnesses must be examined, and the principle of natural justice must be adhered to. The Court also emphasized the need for a fair hearing and proper establishment of any confession. [FINAL DECISION] The Court quashed the orders, directed the petitioner's reinstatement, and allowed for fresh proceedings, with a caution against imposing a higher punishment.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. The petitioner, Ravi Shanker Dwivedi, was a Single Window Operator-A, a member of the clerical staff employed with the Punjab National Bank, Gorakhpur. He was posted at the Urdu Bazar Branch of the Punjab National Bank, Gorakhpur. He was suspended pending inquiry into the allegations of embezzlement of funds relating to two customers, to wit, Munni Devi, who was the holder of Account No. 0184000100257189 and Om Prakash Verma, holder of Account No. 0184000100200844. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, carrying a solitary charge, that reads to the following effect:
Account No. 0184000100257189 of Smt. Munni Devi:
| S. No. | Date | Amount | Transaction Id | User Id |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1. | 15.01.2019 | 20000 | M863401 | 301223RSD |
| 2. | 19.01.2019 | 20000 | M627356 | 301223RSD |
| 3. | 21.01.2019 | 20000 | M785502 | 301223RSD |
| 4. | 28.01.2019 | 20000 | M848282 | 301223RSD |
| 5. | 02.02.2019 | 20000 | M683629 | 301223RSD |
| 6. | 06.02.2019 | 10000 | M652561 | 301223RSD |
| 7. | 12.02.2019 | 20000 | M715059 | 301223RSD |
| 8. | 16.02.2019 | 20000 | M447804 | 301223RSD |
|
| Total | 150000 |
|
|
Account No. 0184000100200844 of Shri Om Prakash Verma:
| S. No. | Date | Amount | Transaction Id | User Id |
| 1. | 02.02.2019 | 20000 | M160010 | 301223RSD |
| 2. | 02.02.2019 | 20000 | M680609 | 301223RSD |
| 3. | 04.02.2019 | 20000 | M823578 | 301223RSD |
| 4. | 04.02.2019 | 20000 | M1014365 | 301223RSD |
| 5. | 06.02.2019 | 20000 | M617645 | 301223RSD |
| 6. | 11.02.2019 | 20000 | M980932 | 301223RSD |
| 7. | 12.02.2019 | 20000 | M321542 | 301223RSD |
| 8. | 12.02.2019 | 20000 | M869709 | 301223RSD |
| 9. | 16.02.2019 | 20000 | M116541 | 301223RSD |
| 10. | 16.02.2019 | 20000 | M533862 | 301223RSD |
| 11. | 16.02.2019 | 15000 | M689347 | 301223RSD |
|
| Total | 215000 |
|
|
The matter has been reported as Fraud to RBI.
Due to your above acts, Bank’s interest & reputation has been jeopardised.
The aforesaid acts of yours are prejudicial to the interest of bank and constiture Gross Misconduct as per clause (j) of Paragraph 5 of Bipartite Settlement dated 10/04/2002 as amended from time to time.
2. A reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 14.02.2021, denying the charge and pleading his detailed defence. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 10.05.2021, holding the charge proved. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 01.06.2021 by the Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Gorakhpur, acting as the Disciplinary Authority. The show-cause notice is detailed and after referring to the solitary charge and the gist of findings, the Inquiry Officer proposed to impose upon the petitioner the penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity, without disqualification from future employment.
3. In answer to the show-cause notice, the petitioner showed cause by his reply dated 09.06.2021. The Disciplinary Authority, by an order passed on the same day i.e. 09.06.2021, proceeded to punish the petitioner with compulsory retirement, granting superannuation benefits with no disqualification from future employment.
4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, the General Manager/Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Lucknow vide his appeal dated 06.07.2021. The Appellate Authority, by his order dated 30.12.2021, dismissed the appeal, affirming the Disciplinary Autho
A.P. Foods vs. S. Samuel and Others
Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. Its Workmen
Jai Prakash vs. Gen. Manager, Zonal Office and Others
Laturi Singh vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and Others
Mahesh Narain Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others
Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank
Salahuddin Ansari vs. State of U.P. and Others
State of U.P. and Another vs. Kishori Lal and Another
State of U.P. and Another vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava
State of U.P. and Others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (1977) 2 SCC 724
Subash Chandra Sharma vs. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills and Others
Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and Another
The failure to conduct a proper inquiry in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice, leading to invalidation of dismissal orders.
In cases involving the imposition of a major penalty, the establishment must prove charges by examining evidence, particularly witnesses, and adhere to the principles of natural justice in the domest....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to conduct a proper departmental enquiry, especially in cases involving major penalties, violates the principles of natural justic....
In disciplinary proceedings, the employer must prove charges through evidence, including witness testimonies, especially when imposing major penalties, to ensure adherence to principles of natural ju....
The establishment has the burden of proving the charges against the delinquent employee by leading oral evidence, in addition to documentary evidence, in a disciplinary inquiry that may result in the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the establishment to prove charges through oral and documentary evidence, and the necessity of holding a proper inquiry de novo....
An employer can impose only one penalty under Regulation 84, and the burden of proof lies with the employer in disciplinary proceedings.
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.