r .a? :^; ir .,^s^^r i«aS?iit;" IN THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR > CHHATTISGARH ,. , WMT PETITION N0. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Versus ^.)-^ 3^31 A^-^ [£;••' Shri Kedar Ram Dumar Kamri, S/o. Shri Sekhau Dumar Kamri , Aged about 57 years , Retired Asst Manager of State Bank of India , R/o. Sarangarh, Distt : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh . 1. The State Bank of India, Through : Chief General Manager ( Appelate Authority, State Bank Of India, Local Head Oftice , Bhopa'l , Madhya Pradesh. 2. The General manager ( D & PB.) Appointing & Disciplinary authority, State Bank of India, Loeal Head Office, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 3. Assistant General Manager, Region - 5 , State Bank of India, Regional Office, RAIPUR.,Chhattisgarh. .rc; c_3, WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTIQN OF INDIA 1 : ifflffill .f>:-;•::•.:•; i St-^ ' iS'.ff; IH'Rg4:: ^^ii sSpnf WWI!"3VWfws -/PS at:MQ^^UO::^WlOtu^souho^^ isQd ^^•S^^iSQe^a^,'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ snsj^.,:;;*, \,:.,q !; ' uwe».iey.in@;!.u^ep^ ui.jg. ,,.. .; • ws^@^ww^m/\ •¥RdsCTi71:%^N»^|iife .S-'-N3QN^gg@ y3N©LEi3S ^^^^M^SM^%;^^^ SM ffl'a i:®jls!B Fililil ;j['ij| s l!i! 'yjs?-"- "^ 1 I "'"':%i S •^c^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0. 962 OF 2001 Shri Kedar Ram Dumar Kamri Versus The State Bank of India & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 & 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Itu Rani Das, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondents. 0_RD_ER (Delivered on this f-! day of July, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and valjdity of the order dated 17/05/2000 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief General Manager/Appellate Authority, State Bank of India, whereby the respondent Bank imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in'the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year with further directions that the officer will not earn increment during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. The petitioner further seeks to challenge the order dated 06/12/1997 (Annexure P/5) whereby and whereunder it has been informed to the petitioner that reduction in the time scale pay by three stage for a period of one year and also stopped increment and such reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment. It has also been informed to the petitioner that the suspension period from 31/08/1994 to • *y^ 20/02/1997 will not be counted for annual increment. The petitioner also prays for grant of back wages with consequential benefits. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner joined service in the State Bank of India as a Cashier-cum-Clerk in the year 1974. On 27/04/1994 while the petitioner was working as Accountant in Balod branch, a notice was served upon him seeking explanation about the fraud and misappropriation in saving bank account no. 74/18676. In the said letter, it was alleged that there was a superfluous credit entry of Rs.35,024/- made in the account of one Ramcharan Sahu, which has been posted by counter clerk and authenticated by the petitioner on 03/01/1994. In the said letter, it was further alleged that from the account, the account holder had withdrawn Rs.34,000/- on two different dates. In response to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 04/05/1994 stating that he had marked his initial after seeing that proper credit voucher was posted by the counter clerk in the ledger and also stated that he had no knowledge about any transaction in the said account. Thereafter, on 17/05/1994 the respondent bank lodged First Information Report and the petitioner was arrested by the police on 31/08/1994. The case was registered being criminal case no. 1026/94 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod District-Durg. The criminal charges read as under: 4-- 4. -T srfi|^ch-1<|"l cf^ Rc|^|4i TT^ f^ K.^\dp 20.12.93 ^ 3.2.94 ^ T[K4 t^ ^IKSII sTTc^ tf ^i^-q^ui ^r^ -c^ 'rm w ^iurr ^rar cf[e ^TE^T ^f^ nsTT 35.024/- WT^ ^RT ?PTT c;^|fch^ ^f> ^ ^n-aT Vvi f^TT, ^Tr RrfaT TTcf ^TTfZT TR- ^^cf^ ^e ^T 3Tra.Er ^r f^ f^i cr^ ^i^r ^ y^ilui-i ^ ^r ^TTT ^TT^, ^rt f^rafl' ^f ^TTO TR ^ l^ f^ ^cfrf ^T^TT q^iff T^ c^ri\;Rtd t ^ ^^l-fl ^T SRTcft c^ ^TT ^r \j4^il Tf ^fT^ T^ ^t f^TfaT ^ WPT TT7 d 'Hc|cti ~^> TTT^' 3Tq^ chl<ll6)l'1 ^ SFTtPT ^T 3T1T-T ''^RrT t^ ^t 34.000/- ^)T^ ^t ^fn-ft ^ td? ^ Pl4i|<?)ch^; ^TRT ^TT f^lT 3fl^ ^TT -S^ ^ ^ ^ 3PR1ET f^ZTT Fj1^4?| ^JTT ¥TTO^O'?fO ^t ETRT 420, 468, 47.1 T^f409 ^ ^T 11" The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 27/09/1994 (Annexure P/2). In the meantime, the respondent bank proceeded departmentally against the petitioner on the following charges : "(i) By authenticating the balance in Savings Bank account after posting of a credit entry which was not required as per extant instruction of the Bank, you have disregarded Bank's instructions. By not making thorough enquiry about the genuineness of the credit voucher posted in the ledger and by not keeping proper control on the Branch records you have been negligent in performance of your duties. Your acts are unmindful of Bank's interests and unbecoming of Bank official. You have contravened Rules Nos. 50(1) and 50(4) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing your services in the Bank. 6. (ii) By withdrawing funds in excess of the sanctioned limit from your OD Current Account you have derived pecuniary gains for yourself. By not referring the overdrawn cheques to the Branch Manager before passing for payment, you have exceeded your authority misusing your official position and vjolated Bank's instructions. You have exhibited lack of integrity. Your acts are unmindful of Bank's interests and unbecoming of Bank official. In the above you have contravened Rules Nos. 50(1) and 50(4) of State Bank of India Officers Sen/ice Rules governing your services in the Bank. The statement of allegation and articles of charges have been framed vide memo dated 01/05/1996 (Annexure P/3). According to the petitioner, no list of witnesses or documents relating to the alleged charges was supplied to the petitioner along with the charge sheet. The enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer vide Annexure P/4. After receipt of the enquiry report, by order dated 06/12/1997 imposed two penalties i.e. (i) reduction in the time scale pay by three stage for a period of one year and also stopped increment and such reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment; and (ii) the suspension period from 31/08/1994 to 20/02/1997 will not be counted for annual increment. After conclusion of the trial in criminal case vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/01/1998, the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Balod, District Durg, convicted the petitioner for commission of aforesaid offences and imposed the punishment of two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.900/-. On the basis of said conviction, the respondent bank by order dated 04/05/1998 7. 8. (Annexure P/6) terminated the petitioner from the service. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg, being criminal appeal no. 43/98. The Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the part:ies acquitted the petitioner from the criminal case by judgment dated 17/02/1999 (Annexure P/7). After acquittal, by order dated 17/08/1999 (Annexure P/8), the respondent bank reinstated the petitioner in service. Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing with Ms. Itu Rani Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has been punished twice by the disciplinary authority in spite of the fact that the appellate Court acquitted the petitioner from all the criminal charges, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the authority concerned for condonation of charges and consideration of penalties imposed upon him. The appellate authority of the respondent bank passed the order dated 17/05/2000 (Annexure P/1) without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter and spirit. Shri Agrawal would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent officer and was never involved in any fraud and he was never misused his power and authority. The charges leveled against the petitioner are baseless. No list of witnesses and documents were supplied to the petitioner with the charge sheet. Shri Agrawal would next submit that without following the principles of natural justice, the disciplinary enquiry has /'^••!'%."% I 1 11i / been conducted in an illegal and arbitrary manner and with mala fide intension only to harass the petitioner. The petitioner has been punished twice by the respondent bank for the same set of charges in spite of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge from all the criminal charges. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to all the financial and other consequential benefits, as the petitioner retired from his service voluntarily as per the provisions of the voluntary retirement scheme, introduced by the respondent bank. 9. On the other hand, Shri Goutam Bhaduri, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, would submit that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the disciplinary authority in terms of Rule 68 A (1) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rule. Along with the charge sheet, statement of allegation and article of charges was provided to the petitioner. Shri Bhaduri would further submit that the enquiry offjcer found both the charges as proved. Agreeing with the finding of enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority observed that the petitioner had disregarded the bank's instructions thereby exhibited lack of devotion towards his duties and exceeded hisjurisdiction. 10. Shri Bhaduri would next submit that the respondent bank is a premier banking institution dealing with public funds. The confidence of the public rests on the credit worthiness and integrity of its employees. Therefore, any of its employees who have committed forgery and cheating cannot be allowed to be :-»¥;'*> B. retained in bank service. In fact, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioner from the criminal charges only on the ground of 'benefit of doubt', therefore, it cannot be treated as clean acquittal from the criminal charges. The period of removal w.e.i. 22/01/1998 till reinstatement was treated as absence from duty on the principles of 'no work no pay'. Learned counsel would also submit that the disciplinary action is based on preponderance of probability while criminal action is based on strict rules of evidence. The disciplinary/appointing as well as the appellate authority passed the orders only after appreciating the material available on record and in accordance with law. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition may be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the pari:ies, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 12. On perusal of the enquiry report, it is found that the enquiry was based on documents, as no witnesses were examined by either side. The petitioner participated in enquiry without any demur or objection. The petitioner submitted his defense statement on 08/07/1996 (Annexure - R/4). However, it is not found from any document that the petitioner wanted to examine some of the witnesses, which was not permitted by the enquiry officer. In the enquiry, charges werefound proved. Thereafter, by order dated 06/12/1997 (Annexure - P/5) the petitioner was imposed two penalties i.e. (i) reduction in the time scale pay by three stage for a period of one year and also stopped increment and such reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment; and (ii) the suspension period from 31/08/1994 to 20/02/1997 will not be counted for annual increment. In appeal, the appellate authority by order dated 17/05/2000 (Annexure - P/1) reduced the punishment imposed by the appointing authority and imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year with further directions that the officer will not earn increment during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. Thus, it cannot be held that the enquiry was vitiated and irregular. 13. This Court in Surendra Kumar Thakur v. State Bank of India & Others , observed as under : "22. It is evident on perusal of the enquiry report vis a vis averments made by the petitioner that the enquiry officer has found sufficient evidence to hold the petitioner as guilty of the charge No.1. Statement of the security guard and complaint of the Rukmini Bai have not been found relevant to the allegation that the petitioner had informed to the passing officer that the petitioner knew the account holder i.e. the' complainant and the account holder had gone outside for some work. On that basis, the petitioner got the withdrawal slip passed by the passing officer. Even if the statement of the complainant and the statement of the security guard to the effect that the cashier has sent a blank withdrawal slip/voucher for obtaining signature of the complainant are taken into consideration, it does not go to prove that the petitioner was not guilty of getting the withdrawal slip passed bythe passing officer on the basis offalse 12006(3)CGLJ 164 statement that she had gone outside for some work. Admittedly, the complainant had not gone to the bank at all on 18.3.2000 for withdrawing money." 14. The Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Others , observed as under: "9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. 10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the orderwould be perverse. But ifthere is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which would be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as pen/erse and the findings would not be interfered with". 15. In Yoginath Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Another, the Supreme Court observed as under: "51.......The law is well settled that if the findings are perverse and are not supported by evidence on record or the findings recorded at the domestic trial are such to which no reasonable person would have reached, it would be open to the High Court as also to this Court to interfere in the matter. In Kuldeep Vs. Comm. of Police this Court, relying upon the earlier decisions in Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rama Rao, Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Jain, Bharat Iron Works Vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel as also Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Admn. laid down that although the court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer in a departmental enquiry, it 2 (1999)23cc 10 3 (1999)73cc 739 .^C3!~--:.. yl^ i 10 does not mean that in no circumstances can the court interfere. It was observed that the power of judicial review available to a High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and the courts can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were pen/erse". 16. The Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others , observed as under: "12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power ofjudicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an enquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the CourVTribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold enquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary (1995)63cc749 ^ih-.. 11 fe. ''^c^'' 17. 18. 19. authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case". In another decision, after having considered all the previous decisions of the Supreme Court, on the issue involved in the present petition, the Supreme Court in V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC and others observed as under:- "11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision- making process and notthe decision". In the light of the decisions cited above, there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of the enquiry officer and accordingly the findings as recorded by the enquiry officer are not perverse. The findings do not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, it does not call for any interference. The punishment thereto imposed by the disciplinary authority appears to be just and proper. With regard to the second submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be punished twice, as in the departmental enquiry he (2005) 7 SCC 338 •<x 12 k has been punished and thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted from criminat trial by the appellate authority and for the period of removal from service till reinstatement after acquittal from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge the petitioner has been denied the payment of salary. This amounts to second punishment. The payment of salary for the period from removal of service till reinstatement of service has been denied on the principle of 'no work no pa/. 20. The question of grant of back wages from the period of removal to reinstatement came into consideration before the Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Another. In the said matter, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that on the basis of conviction, the employee was not in service and thereafter, consequent upon acquittal he was entitled to reinstatement. The employee was terminated from service on the basis of conviction, thus the principle of 'no work no pay' was rightly applicable. 21. The aforesaid proposition of law was referred with approval in Union of India and Others v. Jaipal Singh . 22. In the case on hand, the petitioner was removed from service on the basis of conviction by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and thereafter he was reinstated on acquittal by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, the petitioner was rightly denied the backwages for the interregnum period. "(1996) 11 SCC603 72003AIRSCW6635 ./ (V 23. The departmental enquiry was initiated on two .charges as aforestated and the criminal case was registered for commission of offence punishable under Sectjons 420, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. It is well settled principle of law that the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can be initiated in case of commission of criminal offence, which amounts to misconduct on the partof delinquent employee (See State Bank of India and Others v. R.B. Sharma8). 24. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 25. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 26. There shall be no order asto costs. -—— Qowri Sd/- Sadsh K. Agnihotri Judge