Service law – Reinstatement – Respondent-Bank employee was appointed by the bank, he served as a manager of a bank’s branch – Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him alleging his complicity in five major charges during his posting as manager – Charges related to the non-recording of subsidy amount in subsidy register; deposit of subsidy in the account of twelve fictitious persons in connection with the Project of Central Government; misappropriation of loan and subsidy amount; removal of the relevant documents to conceal the misappropriation and that the respondent in connivance with others transferred amounts through three demand draft bank – Enquiry was conducted – Enquiry officer found that respondent was guilty of the charges – Disciplinary Authority accepted the report and terminated his employment – Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal – Respondent approached High Court – Writ petition was dismissed by the Single Bench of the High Court – The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Appellate and disciplinary authorities – On appeal, held: In view of evidence of MW 1 and in absence of any documentary evidence showing that the respondent was having the primary responsibility to maintain the subsidy register charge of non-recording of subsidy amount in subsidy register, not proved – Charge that respondent deposited subsidy in the account of twelve fictitious persons, Bank had relied on disposition of 7 persons, they were identified by MW 2 but neither his identity nor the identity of the 7 persons was proved, additionally there was no material linking the respondent with the applications of introducing the borrowers, etc. – No evidence of involvement of the respondent – Charge of misappropriation of entire loan and subsidy amount was based on confessional statement, the said documentwas not exhibited and undeniably it was not signed – Document can bound authors but not the third parties like respondent – As far as the charge of removing the documents is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the respondent has removed them – Charge of transferring amounts through three demand draft was concerned, there was no material evidence to suggest the same – Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court upheld – Respondent reinstated.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. It was seen that MW 1, the management witness, who deposed about the procedure in the bank, for recording entries in the subsidy register, clearly stated that at the relevant time, some entries were made by the respondent, and some by MMS, who “used to maintain the subsidy register on most occasions.” He also deposed that it was MMS’s duty as the cashier to maintain the subsidy register. MMS failed to discharge that duty. In view of this evidence, and no contrary documentary evidence casting the primary responsibility to maintain the subsidy register on the respondent, the impugned judgment, in this court’s opinion, cannot be faulted with in concluding that there was no material to prove the first charge against the employee. As regards the second charge of misappropriation of subsidy amount from twelve individuals, whose names were fraudulently introduced, the bank relied on the depositions of seven persons. They were identified by MW2, himself at the time Pradhan, Chandabila Gram Panchayat. MW 2’s identity was challenged at the outset by the respondent; he did not produce any identity proof. The enquiry officer did not rule on this. The impugned judgment concluded that in the absence of proof of HB’s identity, and any independent material, with respect to the seven alleged beneficiaries, their identity was not independently proved. Additionally, there had to be some material, linking the employee (respondent) with the applications, introducing the borrowers, etc. MW-1, the subsequent manager, clearly deposed in reply to a query (question no. 8) as to who used to “identify the borrowers” before sanction and disbursement of IRDP loans, that the “Pradhan/Member of Gram Panchayat” used to identify the beneficiaries. Such being the case, the involvement of the respondent employee had to be shown by more definitive evidence. It is again a matter of record, that the then Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, identified the borrowers. In these circumstances, even in departmental proceedings, there had to be some overt evidence, and not mere suspicion, to support a valid finding of complicity of the respondent. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted with in its findings on the second charge. [Para 21][1003-E-H; 1004-AD]
2. The third charge of misappropriation of the entire loan and subsidy amount in connivance with SKD and MMS was based on a confessional statement (document ‘X’). In the present case, however, the confessional statement was not by the respondent. Those who authored the confession, did not depose in the enquiry. Furthermore, no witness who heard the authors of the confession, deposed to it. At best then, that document bound the authors, not third parties, like the respondent. The enquiry officer clearly erred by relying on such extraneous matters, as the respondent could not be made a scapegoat for the confession of others, especially with regard to his role. The bank’s charge about his complicity had to be proved by evidence. This document, containing others’ confession, could not have been used against him. [Paras 22, 23][1004-D-E; 1006-C-E]
3. As far as the other two charges go, the division bench correctly held that there was no evidence to show that the respondent had removed the documents, from the bank. Importantly, he was charged seven years after the alleged incident; by that time other managers had taken over the branch. As regards the last charge of transferring amounts through three demand drafts from the account of MMS to Joint S.S. Account of HB on 28.06.94 was concerned, the enquiry officer noted that, “Sri HB in his evidence avoided the matter for some reasons best known to him.” In the absence of any other material, the finding that the amounts had been misappropriated by the respondent, who in connivance with MMS, and SKD, ensured that the loan component was returned to the bank, cannot be said to have been established. [Para 24][1006-E-G]
Union of India v. H.C. Goel [1964] 4 SCR 718 ; T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995]
4 Suppl. SCR 644; Bank of India v. Degala
Suryanarayana (1999) 5 SCC 762 : [1999] 3 SCR 824; Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh (2010) 11 SCC
233 : [2010] 9 SCR 71; Moni Shankar v. Union of India (2008) 3 SCC 484 : [2008] 3 SCR 871; State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 : [2011] 3 SCR 589; Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570 : [2008] 17 SCR 1476; J.D. Jain v Management of State Bank of India 1982 (1) SCC 143 : [1982] 2 SCR 227; State Bank of India v Hemant Kumar 2011 (2) SCC 22 : [2011] 4 SCR 280, In Administrative Law, 2nd edn., p.
584 – relied on.
UP State Road Transport Corporation v Har Narain Singh (1998) 9 SCC 220; State Bank of India v Ram Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212: [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 511; Government of A.P & Ors. v Mohd. Narsulla Khan (2006) 2 SCC 373: [2006] 1 SCR 911; Sher Bahadurv. Union of India & Ors (2002) 7 SCC 141 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 568; Narinder Mohan Arya v United India Insurance Co. Ltd (2006) 4 SCC 713: [2006] 3 SCR
932 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.