Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, S. C. DAS, JJ.
Sri Pritis Kumar De - PETITIONER
Versus
The State Bank of India & Ors. - RESPONDENTS
W.P.(C) No. 451 of 2011
Decided On : 04.08.2015
Ms. S. Deb Gupta
Mr. S. Dutta,
Headnote:
BANKING - DISCIPLINARY ACTION - GROSS MISCONDUCT - OVERDRAWAL FROM CURRENT ACCOUNT - PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - VALIDITY - BANK EMPLOYEE - OVERDRAWAL FROM CURRENT ACCOUNT BEYOND SANCTIONED LIMIT - GROSS MISCONDUCT - PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - VALIDITY - BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 11(1) - MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 10.04.2002 - CLAUSE 5(J) - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Assistant at Kunjaban Branch of State Bank of India (SBI), availed overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- in connection with his Current Account No. 10221182291. During the period from September, 2005 to June, 2006, he resorted to overdrawal from his current account and as on 28.06.2006 the balance in his overdraft account stood at Rs.16,36,329.32. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner alleging criminal offence by way of overdrawal and a show cause notice was issued proposing a disciplinary proceeding against him for gross misconduct. A departmental inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted a report finding the petitioner guilty of gross misconduct. The disciplinary authority, after considering the report and the petitioner's explanation, dismissed him from service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner's act of overdrawing from his current account beyond the prescribed limit amounted to gross misconduct since such an overdrawal was prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. The Court further held that the disciplinary authority was justified in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner even though a criminal case was pending against him, as the provision of Clause (4) of the bipartite agreement did not prevent the disciplinary authority from doing so. The Court also found that the inquiry officer's findings were not perverse and that the disciplinary authority was justified in relying on them. The Court held that the punishment of dismissal from service was not excessive or disproportionate to the offence committed by the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's act of overdrawing from his current account beyond the prescribed limit amounted to gross misconduct?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner's act of overdrawing from his current account beyond the prescribed limit amounted to gross misconduct since such an overdrawal was prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority.
S.C. Das, J.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, prayed for setting aside and/or quashing final order of punishment dated 25.09.2010, issued by respondent No.2, the disciplinary authority, dismissing him from service and also prayed for reinstating him in the service as Senior Assistant under the respondent No.1.
2. Heard learned counsel, Ms. S. Debgupta for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. S. Dutta for the respondents.
3. The petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant, attached with Kunjaban Branch of State Bank of India (for short ‘SBI’) at Agartala. He was availing overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/in connection with his Current Account No. 10221182291. During the period from September, 2005 to June, 2006, the petitioner resorted to overdrawal from his current account and as on 28.06.2006 the balance in his overdraft account stood at Rs.16,36,329.32. It is contended by the petitioner that after the overdrawal was noticed, with the permission of the respondentBank, on 03.07.2006 the overdraft account was brought within its limit. It is further contended by the petitioner that on 24.01.2007, the Branch Manager of Kunjaban Branch of SBI lodged an FIR against petitioner alleging criminal offence by way of overdrawal and that FIR was registered as East Agartala P.S. Case No.19 of 2007, which was subsequently registered as G.R. No.84/2007 under Section 409 of IPC. A copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexure1 to the writ petition. Thereafter by Memo dated 09.07.2007 (Annexure2 to the writ petition) a show cause notice was issued proposing a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for gross misconduct on the following article of charges :
“SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
It is alleged that while working as Senior Assistant at Kunjavan Branch during the period from 01.09.2005 to 03.07.2006 certain irregularities of serious nature have been observed in your activities.
You are, therefore, charged as under :
CHARGE-1
You have fraudulently withdrawn an excess amount of Rs. 13,36,329.32 from your personal overdraft account (No.1022118229) against sanctioned limit of Rs.3.00 lacs maintained at Kunjavan Branch over a period of time.
CHARGE-2
You have posted the following debit/credit transactions on various dates into your personal overdraft account (No.1022118229) under your own ID & Password:
Date
Amount
Date
Amount
05.09.2005
Rs.2000
06.01.2006
Rs.9000
14.09.2005
Rs.2000
07.01.2006
Rs.2000
27.09.2005
Rs.4000
09.01.2006
Rs.6000
06.10.2005
Rs.4000
10.01.2006
Rs.32000
08.10.2005
Rs.2500
12.01.2006
Rs.10000
13.10.2005
Rs.5000
14.01.2006
Rs.2000
15.10.2005
Rs.3000
16.01.2006
Rs.5000
21.10.2005
Rs.10000
18.01.2006
Rs.10000
31.10.2005
Rs.7000
25.01.2006
Rs.7000
31.10.2005
Rs.8000
27.01.2006
Rs.3000
03.11.2005
Rs.3500
28.01.2006
Rs.5000
07.11.2005
Rs.2500
02.02.2006
Rs.13000
04.02.2006
Rs.10000
10.11.2005
Rs.8000
07.02.2006
Rs.4000
14.11.2005
Rs.9000
08.02.2006
Rs.10000
17.11.2005
Rs.3000
10.02.2006
Rs.10000
19.11.2005
Rs.3000
13.02.2006
Rs.10000
20.11.2005
Rs.7000
15.02.2006
