IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13805 of 2002 MANOJ KUMAR Versus THE G.M.,S.B.I.,PATNA & ORS ----------- 5/ 27/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who is stated to be an Assistant, Cash and Accounts, in the State Bank of India at Sai Branch, was placed under suspension on 28.9.1998. On 7.4.1999 a show cause notice was issued to him why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him. The allegations against him were that while officiating as the Cash Officer, the cash tendered by customers spread over several days (specified), though received by him, were not entered in the cash receipts scroll by him. They were entered in the relative ledger account(s), but not deposited in the cash account of the Bank and in stead pocketed by the petitioner. The vouchers were then surreptitiously removed with ulterior motive. To avoid the possibility of immediate suspension they were entered in five pass-books in separate accounts and he initialed the added balance. Immediately thereafter the petitioner withdrew certain sums from his savings bank account without maintaining sufficient balance on the material date. 2 That one of the deposits over the counter was entered in the scroll by overwriting the date on the pay-in slip and branding cash receipt stamp over existing rubber stamp. That these were acts of gross misconduct. A departmental proceeding followed after the petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty on Charge- 1(i)(iii) and 3 while holding that charge No.2 was not established. The petitioner has chosen not to bring the enquiry report on record. On 15.7.2004 on the submission of the petitioner that the findings of guilt by the enquiry officer was not supported by deposition of witnesses during enquiry when the Court granted him an opportunity to bring the depositors on record. No such document of evidence has been filed by the petitioner despite such long passage of time. The disciplinary authority on 14.8.2001 considered the objections of the petitioner and by specific discussion of the evidence of witnesses during enquiry, vis-à-vis, the objections raised by the petitioner found them to be untenable. The disciplinary authority held that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.4 before the enquiry officer fully established the charge. To his defence that the depositors did not name him, the 3 disciplinary authority held that the depositors may not be remembering his face and name, but the petitioner was the person on duty at the cash counter that day when P.W.1 and P.W.4 had clearly stated that they had deposited the money at the cash counter. The counterfoils of the vouchers with regard to the deposit bore the initial and signature of the petitioner. The documentary evidence of the cash receipts bore the initials and signature of the petitioner. Orders of punishment from removal from service with immediate effect were passed. The petitioner went in appeal which was rejected by an order dated 19.1.2002. The appellate order is reasoned. It considers appropriately the grounds raised in appeal and then discusses them in context of the evidence available on record. It also notices the money receipts issued by the petitioner when the defence witnesses were deposing against their previous written statements and documentary evidence. Applying the standards of preponderance of probabilities the order of punishment required no interference. The law with regard to departmental proceedings stands well codified by repeated judgements. This Court is required to examine 4 procedural fairness in the decision making process. Naturally such decision shall take within its ambit a fair opportunity to defend, disclosure of all materials sought to be relied upon against the delinquent and a reasoned order. The petitioner himself has chosen not to bring on record the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have in detail discussed the substance of the enquiry report. The petitioner was a person holding cash duties in a bank, in the position of a trustee of the money of the customers. The appellate order takes note of the conclusion of the disciplinary authority that he is a person of doubtful integrity and unfit to be retained in the service of the bank. The standard of duty of a bank official holding the position of trust with regard to the money of the account holder and the strict standards that shall be applied to them has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in (2008) 8 S.C.C. 92 ( STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus S.N. Goyal ) holding at paragraph-41 as follows, of the higher responsibilities of a bank official dealing with the money of customers:- “41. At the relevant point of time the respondent was functioning as a Branch Manager. A bank survives on the trust of its clientele and constituents. The position of the 5 Manager of a bank is a matter of great trust. The employees of the bank in particular the Manager are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the bank. Any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds of the bank or its customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. When a borrower makes any payment towards a loan, the Manager of the bank receiving such amount is required to credit it immediately to the borrower’s account. If the matter is to be viewed lightly or leniently it will encourage other bank employees to indulge in such activities thereby undermining the entire banking system. The request for reducing the punishment is misconceived and rejected.” This Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is satisfied that there is no infirmity either in the departmental proceeding or the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority requiring interfering by this Court. This Court shall not sit as an appellate authority to reappraise the evidence before the enquiry officer on the basis of which findings have been arrived at. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)