mvasmGa ^QFJUmCATUSEA'FBILASPURfCHHArriSG. ITPE'nTIOITHft"l-02-& OF 2003 AKriQLESSyOF THE CONSTITUTIOS GF WDJA SipencEra KuiBai' 'nia&ur, Son of Stei p.8, /•*"" ThaMir, aged about 30 years, Qaarter Wo. Type- HI/ WD8 '229. Kifaadool^ Distt, Daatewada. (Cfa'faettisgarhj VERSUB .,AV^-8£SPQ@DEgTg : 1. StateBsi&o.fiadia, j . ' (J'i'-ough ita Chais'Qiecti Cas.i Maaagiug Qirectsw, 147 Bai.c.kbay Re-alaaia-dris. , JMadam. Cain.a Road, Muaiba.i. 2, Re.giosal Assistaat QeEerai Maxiger-Cuin- DiscipK-na.ry Antb.orit's', State .Benk ot. fe.dia., Bastar (C.G.I 3, B.raach MfflE-sger-, State Baafc ot'India , Br&Eich Bacfceli. Distt. Dairteiyada {C.Q.l //^/ 6^/ ^ / y^y •• -.? y^ ^^T ^/^ /' ^/ry w :* '•^ ,/? ',- :1\ ft '- "\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1026 of 2003 (3'^ Petitioner Respondents Versus Surendra Kiunar Thakur State Bank oflndia & others -"*T ,('lo. •<rt(» ny Post fer order on. 3 March, 2006 Satish K; Sd/- Judge ^£,O.A,»/^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pfetition No. 1026 of 2003 Petitioner Respondents Versus Surendra Kuinar Thateur State Bank oflndia & others Sia^e Bench: HonTile Mr. Justice Satish K. Agalhotei. Shri P.S, Koshy, couasel for the Petitioner, Shri P. R. Patankar, counsel for the respondeuts. ORDER (3ri Mawh, 2006) The present writ petition fited uiider Article 226 of Constitution of India impugns fhe order of reinoval from service dated 16.12.2002 (Aimexiire P-26). The facts in nutsheU are fhat the petitioner was uutially appointed on the post of Assistant (Cash and Accounts) io. the State Bank oflndia (heremaflEr referred to as "SBn, idde order dated 9.10.1995 aad he was posted at Stikma, District-Daatewada. The respoadents/Bank received a coinplaint fiom one Snit Rukiniui Bai (hereinater Teferred to as "the complainant^ fhat a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has beem withdrawn fiom Iier Account No. 01190010093 of Kirandul Branch of SBI. In the complamt, it was stated fhat, ia the ineaatuae, she was threatened by the cashier fhat she woiiM go to jafl if she refused to sign on the withdrawal sUp. It was further stated that one baak securily guard caine with one blaak sUp for obtamiag her signature, which shc decUucd to do. On the basis of the said coniplaait, fhe Branch Maaager, Kirandiil issued a memo to the petitioner seekiag detaUs and clarification of the aUeged withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- on 18.3.2000 fioin the accouat of the complainaat. The petitioner submitted his reply on 1.1.2000 (Aniiexure P-3), stating that the petitioner does not reinember as to whether fhe account holdcr was having pass book at fhe tune of submitting withdrawal slip. However, the petitioner admitted fhat he knew the coinplmnant, as his resadence was iu the same bk>ck, where the coinplainaat was Uving. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 27.9.2000 (Annexure P-4) p^sed by the Disciplinaiy Aufhority and Assistant General Mau^er on the ground that the petitioner has madc entiy ia the ledger-sheet an.d got the withdrawal sUp passed by the passing officer, after identi^nni the complainant. It was further atleged that the payinent was withdrawn by fhe petitioner from the cashier, Shri K. R. Kashyap. The Assistaat Gencral Msaiager, SBI, Regional OfBce, J^dalpur issued further a notice dated 12.10.2000 (Aniiexure P-5) to thc petitioner seeku^ clarification the wifhdrawal of Rs, 10,000/- fix>m the accozmt of the complainant. The petitioner submitted his reply vide communication dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure P-6) statuij that the petitioner had no hands in the alleged withdrawal. '^-•> ••''"> The petitioner submitted for supply ofa copy ofthe coinputer lcdger-sheet of the accoiint of the coniplanaat, a photocopy ofwithdrawal sUp aad inspection offhe original sUp and cash register dated 18.3.2000 ofthc cashier in order to kuow as to who had signed on fhe voucher at the time of takmg fhe inoney fix>m the cashier. 6. By coinmunicatton dated 6.11.2000 (Armexure P-7), the Braach Msaaager of Kirandul Braach of SBl decUaed to supply photocopy of the requtred docuinents. However, the petitioaer was granted pennissiou to have iaspection of the said dociunents in presence of the Branch Manager of the local branch. The petitioner has sent aaother cominunication dated 9.11.2000 (Aanexure P-8) subinitting fhat the petitioner was uot given even iaspection of the withdrawal sUp of Rs. 10,000/- fliom the account of complainant, when he had visited the braach on 8.11.2000 for iaspection of docuiaeuts. It was further requested that inspectiou ofthe withdrawal sUp be given to the petitioner, as the aBegations agatast the petitioner was that the petitioner has got fhe withdrawal sUp passed by the passiag officer, Shri K.K. Sahare on the grouad that he knew the coinplainaat persoiially. The petitioner requested for iaspectfon of fhe baak scroU and taansit book of the passing ofi&cer, Shri K.K. Sahare in order to rebut aflegations made agauist hiin. 7. By anofher conimunicatktn dated 13.11.2000 (Aimexure P-9) fhe petitfoner requested the Branch Msmager, Kirandul y (ily Y, y Branch to graat him inspection of baak scroll aad traasit book of Shri K.K. Sahare, passiag ofBcer aad withdrawal slip dated 18.3.2000 ofthe complainant. 8. The respondent No. 2 by letter dated 9.11.2000 (Aiuiexure P-10) infonned the petitioner that the petitioaer has received a notice dated 12.10.2000 on 14.10.2000, whereby the petitioner was required to subiait his explanation withia a period of 15 days, which had been over, the petitioner was further graatcd 3 niore days to aubniit his explauation/clarification through the Branch Manager, failmg which it would be presumed that the petitioner had nottung to say in the matter. 9. The petitioner by letter datcd 15.11.2000 (Aimexure P-11) submitted his explanation to the respondent No. 2, deaymg aU the aBegatious and fhe fact that he had any role ia withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- finm fhe account of the complaiiiant. It was further stated fhat despite his repeated requests, he neifher suppUed a copy of the wifhdra'roal slips nor iaspection of fhe withdranyal sUps was given to liim. It was further stated that the aiaount was not wifhdrawn by him. 10. The respondent No. 2 issued a chaige-sheet on 29.12.2000 (Annexure P-13) on fhe ground fhat petitioner had presented a fake withdrawal sUp in the oflDa.e of the coiaplamaat on 18.3.2000 for withdrawal of fhe amount from fhe account of the complainaat aad got the slip passed by the passmg o£5cer. It was further aUeged that the petitioner has himself /' ^" Y. received the payaient agaiast fhe said ainount cashier aad has received other amouats also on behatf of otfaer account holdera of A/c. Nos. 01190008287 and 01190005150. In view ofthe said conduct the petitioner was cbarg/sd to have violated Clause 521 (4) (J) of Sashtri Award read with Desai Award for having comimtting fi-aud with the accotmt holders, which comes wifhia the pumew of "serious nusconducf. The petitioner was caUed upon to submit his explaxiation withia a period of 15 days on thc abcwe stated two chai^es. 11. The pctitioner vide letter dated 3.1.2001 (Aimexure P-14]i requcsted the Branch Manager, SBI, Kirandul to provide inspection offhc withdrawal slips dated 18.3.2000, ia case of Bank A/c. No. 01190008287, A/c. No. 0119000518) ,and A/c. no. 01190010093 ofthc complaiaant. 12. The respondent No. 2 vide lctter dated 20.8.2001 (Annexure P-16) graated furfher 7 days tiaie to fhe petitioner to subinit tais explanation, as the petitioner did not submit his explanation within a period of 15 days, granted earlier. FinaUy, the petitioner subinitted his explanation by letter dated 7.9.2001 (Armcxure P-17), deuyiag all the aUegations against him. 13. Vide letter dated 12.9.2001 (Atmexure P-18) one Shri D. Chanda, Manager, SBI, BacheU Bran.ch was appointed as enquiry oflBcer wifh a direction to subnut thc enquiry report witfua stipulated time i.e. on 12.3.2002. The euquiiy officcr conducted the detaUed enqzuiy and subiaitted his enquuy 6 X 1 ': <''-y report dated 26.3.2002 (Aanexiue R-IV) holding that fhe chai^e No. I, to fhc extent fhat the pctitioner presented the fake withdrawal sUp on behalfofthe coinplainant and got the entiy in ledger-sheet (computer) and the withdrawal sUp passed by the passing officer, was proved. The second charge that the petitioner has accepted the amounts against tbc withdrawal sBp of the complamant and two ofher ainounts against A/c. No. 01190008287 and 0190005150 fixim the cashier was piuved partly. 14. The pctitioner was given second show cause notice by tetter dated 27.3.2002 (Aimexure R-VII) to subxnit his explsmatjon on fhe enquuy report. Thereafter one inore show cause notice was issued by letter dated 14.6.2002 (Auaexure R-IX, Annexiire P-24). The petitioner submitted his repty by conuniuaication dated 25.7.2002 (Anaexure P- 25), 15. The respondeat No. 2/DiscipIinaiy Authority vide order dated 16.12.2002 (Annexure P-26), agreeiag wifh the enquiry report, removed the petitioner firom baak service uader Clause 521 (6) (B) under (Auaexure-II) Page-4 Paia-6 of xaeiaoraadtun of settleinent dated 10.4.2003 in accordance wifh Sashtri Award read wi£hDesai Award as modified on thc groimd fhat the petitioner has coiumitted serious misconduct. 16. Beiag aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition without fiting an appeal before the appeflate authority i.e. Board of Directors. 17. Shri P.S. Koshy, learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the findiags of the enquiiy report is based on no ewidence and the conclusions are based on unTeHabk evidence and as such, the fiadmgs of the enquiry officer are perverse. Learaed counsel further submitted that tbe petitioner was neither supplied the relevant documents 13ss withdrawal slips, bank scroll aad traasit book of the passiag officer nor the petitioner was given inspection of aB fhe withdrawal sUps and the vouchera, whereby a person receives amount fiom the cashier, after signiag oa the back of the vouchers. The euqiiuy officer has not considered the stateinent of.the securily guard ofthe baak as under:- " 18/3/2000 qit ^ %?[€t W aff 25.3.2000 ^t ^ <ft ?ff ^ ftW (11ETR <)<fcfeyi) q ^ft ^ ^ ^Tgl^ (^«t>t\i'^-^) ^ ^S^ ^R 4 %(T4 10.000/- ^T 3n?yrr v^ ^s ^ <ftffdt '(»<t>*t"n srf ^ qtaoc," «t><cii^ ^T^ VK 4^r 1pn 8TT ^ft f^ <<W'(sld ^^ ^ VIT ^^ f^T ^gt^ ^?T l^ tw ^ asrre^ mr ^wft i ^s w^ ^ ^wr ^ 4 ^ ^ ^f ull'1«fct<?t ^t Sft -g^ STT^ ^ qR ^f tW\ ^ ^ ^ \4M+1^ ^" In i-egard to chai^e No. 2, the enqiuiy officer has not considered the statement of Shri M.L. Nag aud Shri A.R. Kashyap as under;- " W^e 3|IM<<>1 feW^ ftcTT 1 ^ ^^e ^re^r ^rfN err ara: ^ <ft w^ ^ 4'^e vf^ ^ST i TOT 3114*) ^cf ftcTT 1 '"""? ~ '.> 18/3/2000 ^t arrq^ ^t^r R>«^ ftrar arr i qqr am^ ^qq' W^ l^rar i ?f w am^ <aig<s"i ^ '^ g'wi<a'{ l^n arri sf ^n STT i 1Wf^ STPT^ ^^ l^rar arr i ?f 1 The complainaat has cleariy stated that the cashier threatened fhe coinplainant for obtainiag her siguature on a bank voucher that was also ignored by fhe enquny officer. 18. Learaed counsel rcUed on decisions of fhe Supreme Court m. KuMeep Sin^i Vs. Commissioner of PoUce and othiers1 and Yo^hnath Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtea another2 ia support of bis contention that fhe findlngs are perverse and it does uot reasoiiably foUow the findiags based on evidence available on record and in fhat event, fhe High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with fhe findings of the enquiry ofBcer and graat reliefofreiastateinent is. sendce. 19. Shri P.R. Patankar, learaed couasel appearing for the respondents, per contra, submitted that fhe petitioner has filed this petition directly without availing the statutors' efBcacious reiuedy available to him under thc Sashtri Award read with Desai Award aud subsequent bi-partite settlement between the management aad fhe employees fiTom. tmae to tune. Leamed counsel further subinitted fhat this Court should not exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article i(1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 10 2(1999) ^ Supreme CourtCases 739 c-'< 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with ftie findings of the enquiry report, which has been reached, after a detailed and thorough enquiiy and after having considered aU fhe cvidence available on record and depositions inade by the witaesses examined by bofh the parties. Learued coiinsel further subnutted that fhe enquiiy is elaborate aiid exhaustive. The petitioner was givea second show cause notice also, after enquiiy report was submitted, to subinit his explanation. The disciplinaiy authonty haviug considered fhe enqiuiy report and fhe explaaation subnritted by the petitioner, has come to conclusiou that the baukiag system works on public confidence aad the act of the petitioner has shattered the pubUc coufidence in dealmg of the bank. 20. The petitioner has committed serious mis-conduct by indulging into such an act, wheieby he got the wifhdrawal sUp passed by the passing officer on the basis that the coniplaiaant had given withdrawal sUp to withdraw a siun of Rs. 10.000/- froin her accoiint aad she had gone outside the premises for soine work. Adnuttedly as steted by the coinplainant hersetf and recorded by the enqiuiy officer, on 18.3.2000, the coinplainaat has not entered fhe prenuses itseU" aad bas not subniitted any withdrawal slip for withdrawing fhe aniount. This uidicates fhe rote of the petitioner. Wifh regard to the second charge-sheet, it has been found partty proved iu view of the fact that •Uie aUegation that fhe petitioncr has received cash on behalf of Shri M.L. Nag and A.K. Kashyap, other account holders was ;>L- 10 not found proved. But, fhe acceptance of the ainount behatfofthc complainant has been found prcwed. 21. Haviag heard leained couasel for the parties aad haviiig perused the documents on records, it is found that a detafled enquiry, afiher having given proper opportuiu.ly of hearing to the petitioner, has been conducted. 22. It is evident on perusal of the enqiiiry report ns a T/is averments made by fhe petittoner fhat the enquuy of&cer has found sufficicnt evidence to hold the petitioner as guilty of fhe chai^e No. 1. Stateiaent of fhe securily guard an.d coinplamt offhe Rulaiuni Bai have not been found relevaat to the aUegation that the petitioner had informed to fhe passin| ofi&cer that the petitioner knew the account holder i.e. fhe coiiiplaiaaat and the account holder had gone outside for sonie work. On that basis, fhe petitioner got the withdrawal sUp passed by fhe passiag officer. Even if the statement of fhe complEiiaant aad fhe stateraent of fhe security guard to fhe efifect that the cashier has sent a blank withdrawal sUp/voucher &r obtainiag signature of fhe coinplainant are taken into consideration, it does not go to prove that fhe petitioner was not guilty of getting the withdrawal sUp passed by ttie passiag officer on the basis offalse statement that slie had gone outside for soine work. Adinittedly, the complamant had not gone to fhe bank at aU on 18.3.2000 Ibr wifhdrawing inoney. '' •>• 11 23. The Supreiae Court in case of Kuldeep Siagh (Supra) held as under :- "9. NormaJUy fhe H^h Court aad this Court would not interfere wifh the finduigs of fact recorded at the doinestic enquiry but if fhe fiading of ''giult" is based on no evidence, it would bc a perverse finding aud would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. 10. A broad distmction has, therefore, to be mamtained between the decisions which are perverse aad thosc which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreUable aad no reasonabte person would act upon. it, fhe order would be perverse. But if fhere is soine evidence on record which is acceptable aad which would be reUed upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions wouM not be treated as perverse and fhe findings would not Tae iaterfered with". 24. The another case of Yogmafh D. Badge (Supra), the Supreme Court after considering fhe earlier decisions held as under:- "51..........The law is weU settled fhat if ftie findings are perverse aad are not supported by evidence on record or fhe findings recorded at fhe doinestic 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 KuMeep v. Commr. of PoUce this Coi.irt, relymg upon the earUer decisions in Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rama Rao, Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chao.d Jain, Bharat Inin Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel as also Rajinder Kuinar Kindra v. DeUu Admn. laid down that alfhough fhe court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authorily or the enquuy officer in a departmental euquuy, it does not ineaa that in. no circumstance can the court interfere. It was observed fhat -0 12 the powcr ofjudicial review available to a High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes m its stride the domestic enquiry as well and fhe courts can interfere wifti the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or fhe fiiidiiigs recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinaiy prudent man or the findings were perveise". 25. In case ofB.C. CIuittu-vedt Vs. Unloa of India and others3 held as under;- "12. Judicial review is not an appeal feom. a decision but a review of the inauaer in which the decision is inade. Power of judicial review is nieant to ensure that the individual receives fair toeatDient and not to ensure that fhe conclusion which fhe authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When au enquuy is conducted ou chai^es of inisconduct by a public servant, the Coiut/Tribunal is concemed to determiae whether the inquuy was held by a competent officer or whether rules of naturaljustice are coinpUed with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on soine evidence, the authority eutrusted with the power to hold inquuy has jurisdiction, power and aufhorily to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding inust be based on soine evjdence. Neither fhe techxucal rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, appfy to discipliuaiy proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefix>m, fhe discylinaiy authorily is entifled to hoU that fhe delinquent ofifeer is guiUy of the charge. The Court/Tribuaal in its power ofjudicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and tc' ardve at its own iadependent findmgs on the evidence. 3(1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 749 ^" 13 •-/1 .>- The Court/Tribunal inay interfeiie where the aufh< held fhe proceedings ngniTist the deliaquent ofBcer ia a inanner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violatiou of statutoiy rules prescribiag fhe inode of iaquiiy or where the conclusion or finding reached by the dMciplinaiy aufhorily is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable persoa would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal inay interfere with the conclusion or the finding, aad inould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case". 26. In another latest decision, after having considered aU thc previous decisions of the Supreine Court, on. the issue involved in the present petitiou, fhe Supreiae Court iu V. Ramana Vs. A.P. SRTC and others4 held as uoder :- "11. The coiniaon fhread ninning tfainugh ia all fhese decisions is fhat fhe court should not niterfere with the admiiustrator's decisiou unless it was iUogical or suffers from procedural unpropriely or was shockiag to fhc conscience of thc court, in the sense that it was in defiaace oflogic or inoral standards. In view ofwhat h-as been stated in Wednesbuiy case the court would not go into fhe correctaess of the choice made by the admuustrator open to hiin aad the court should not substitute its decision for that of the adTnmistrator. The scope of judfcial review is lunited to fhe deficienq' ic decision-inaknig process aud not fhe decision . In the light of fhe decisions cited above, fhere is suf&cient evidence to support the findings of the enquiry ofBcer and accordingty the fuuimgs as recorded by the enquiiy ofGcer are •1(2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 338 ;s^^e^^ IB ^^s^t m 27. not per»cisc. The fiiidings do not suffer fmva. any infiraaily. Accordiagty, it does not catt for any interference. The piinishrocnt thereto imposed by the discipUaaiy authority appeare to be just and pioper. This Court in excicise of its jztrisdiction under Articfe 226/227 of thc Constitution docs not sit as aa appeUate court to substitute its decision for that of fhe disciplinaiy autfaonty. Hence, the punishinent of reinoval finm semce is upheld. The petition is accordingfy disnussed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu