1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 877 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 349 OF 2001. Rajan Gangaram Vanmali, .. Appellant. Vs. Central Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. R.D. Bhat for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Cama, Sr. Adv., with Mahesh Londe i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the respondents. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. : Heard. 2 2. This appeal is preferred impugning the decision dated 29.1.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 349 of 2001 wherein the decisions of the Presiding Officer (CGIT) dated 3/3/1999 and 10/2/2000 came to be quashed and set aside It is the case of the appellant that in spite of the fact that there was no evidence on record, the enquiry officer indicted him of the charges which read as under :- "(1) Though he was a Clerk/Teller, in the Savings Bank Department of Bhuleshwar Branch, Shri Vanmali introduced a Current A/c. of a partnership firm in the name of Shreeji Jewellers against the Bank's norms. As per the Bank's norms, a Current A/c. can be opened by a firm if only it is introduced by another Current A/c. holder. (2) Between the period 27th March, 1991 to 6th June, 1991, Shri Vanmali though not connected with the current A/cs. Department of Bhuleshwar Branch, filled in 37 pay-in-slips in his own handwriting, creating various amounts in the C/D. A/c. 109188 of M/s. Shreeji Jewellers. Besides, two cheques amounting to Rs. 9.00 lacs drawn on Dena Bank, 3 Bhuleshwar Branch and lodged in the said account for clearing were returned unpaid on 21.6.1991 and pay-in-slips containing particulars etc. of the said two cheques so represented were filled up by Shri R.G. Vanmali. (3) Even though Shri Vanmali was working in Saving Department of Bhuleshwar Branch, during the period April- May 1991, he in collusion with S/Shri P.J. Savjiany and Anwar Qureshi got issued four fate letters regarding honouring of the cheques drawn by M/s. Shreeji Jewellers. The body of the said letters are in the handwriting of Shri Vanmali himself who, as stated hereinabove, was working in the Savings Department of the Branch and was not allotted any duties in the Current A/cs. Department. The details of the said fate letters are as under : (i) Fate letter dated 29.4.1991 in respect of cheques No. 843231 for Rs. 2,21,100/- cheque No. 843226 for Rs. 2,52,700/- and cheque no. 843228 for Rs. 36,6000/- (ii) Fate letter dated 2.5.1991 in respect of cheque no. 4 843233 for Rs. 2,91,200/-. (iii) Fate letter dated 9.5.1991 in respect of cheque no. 843248 for Rs. 3,02,750/- and cheque no. 843247 for Rs. 3,79,000/- (iv) Fate letter dated 14.5.1991 in respect of cheque no. 843269 for Rs. 7,53,000/- cheque no. 843266 for Rs. 1,89,550/- and cheque no. 843268 for Rs.2,96,800/-. By his abovementioned acts, Shri Vanmali in collusion with Shri P.J. Savjiany misled the collecting bankers and thereby displayed undue favours to the party inasmuch as the balance in the account of M/s. Shreeji Jewellers was insufficient to meet the debits that would arise had the said cheques been debited on the days of presentation. He thus aided and abated M/s. Shreeji Jewellers in committing a fraud. For the said actions Shri Vanmali received illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/-. The aforementioned acts on the part of Shri Vanmali constitute misconduct within the meaning of para 19.5 (j) 5 of the Bipartite settlement dated 19.10.1966 which reads as under :- 19.5(j) “ doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss.” The said charge is a Major Misconduct in terms of bipartite settlement on the basis of the imputation that the appellant introduced the current account of a partnership firm Shreeji Jewellers and thereafter filled in 37 pay-in-slips crediting various amounts. Besides two cheques amounting to Rs. 9 lacs returned unpaid on 21.6.1991 and pay-in-slips containing particulars, etc., of the said two charges so represented were filled up by the appellant and the appellant in collusion with other co- employees i.e. Shri P.J. Savjiany and Anwar Qureshi got issued four fake fate letters regarding honouring of the cheque drawn by M/s. Shree Shreeji Jewellers in his own hand writing on receipt of illegal gratification though there was no balance in their account. The learned Presiding officer of the CGIT found that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and quashed and set aside the punishment imposed by the respondent bank by ordering reinstatement of the appellant in service. 6 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that apart from the fact that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse, even the disciplinary authority found that all the charges against the appellant are not proved and further the CGIT was justified in arriving at a conclusion that the charges against the appellant employee have not been proved as the bank did not examine any witnesses and that these findings ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which was invoked at the instance of the respondent. 4. It is further contended that the appellant employee along with others who came to be prosecuted by C.B.I., on the same charges came to be acquitted though he fairly concedes that one of the officers namely, P.J. Savjiany died during the pendency of the proceedings and the other officer has been dismissed from service. Acquittal in the criminal case prosecuted by C.B.I., does not entail any benefit to the appellant. The approach and objective in criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser 7 punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different. (Refer- i) State of Rajasthan v/s. B.K. Meena, AIR 1997 SC 13. ii) Union of India v/s. T.R. Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 882. iii) Bank of India v/s. Degla Suryanarayana, AIR, 1999 SC 2407. 5. We have gone through the enquiry report placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant by way of compilation and the impugned judgment and order. We find that the learned Single Judge was required to undertake an exercise to examine the impugned award in order to ascertain whether the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and came to the conclusion tat the CGIT s conclusion that the ’ enquiry officer s report was perverse is not correct as the findings given ’ by the enquiry officer are borne out from the evidence on record and, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the CGIT to have allowed the reference on the basis that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. The learned Single Judge has also examined the material which is reflected in the impugned order and has arrived at a finding that there is sufficient evidence which goes to establish the charges 8 framed against the appellant and found that the findings of the enquiry officer in para. 3 of the report clearly record the complicity of the appellant in causing loss to the bank by his conduct and the Presiding Officer of the CGIT ought not to have brushed aside this material which has been brought on record during the departmental enquiry and by doing so it had exceeded its power conferred by Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. vs. P.C. Kakkar reported in 2003 (1) CLR page 796 wherein the Supreme Court has observed the onerous responsibility which the bank officer requires to shoulder. Good conduct and discipline are inseperable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. Therefore, considering the nature of charge and that the same has been established against the appellant, we do not find any reason why this Court should interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( J. N. PATEL, J) (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)