* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTISCE L. NARASIMHA REDDY + WRIT PETITION No.941of 2004 % 11-11-2010 Between: # M. Venugopal S/o. M. Chandraiah …Petitioner And $ The Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Hyderaba and others …Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S. Srinivasa Sharma ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee <Gist: >Head Note: ?Cases referred : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.941 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was functioning as an Assistant Manager in the Syndicate Bank in Durki Branch of Nizamabad District in the year 2001. He was placed under suspension through order dated 10-02- 2001 on the allegation of misconduct. A charge sheet dated 27-02- 2001 was issued alleging that he had virtually inflated the balance in the Savings Bank account No.44 of that branch from Rs.1,067-75 ps., by adding Rs.30,000/- and withdrew that amount on 03-02-2001. Further allegation was that, two days thereafter, i.e. on 05-02-2001, he has remitted that amount by preparing a credit slip in his own handwriting. Petitioner did not submit any explanation, on the ground that he was not furnished the list of witnesses and documents. The management of the Bank appointed an Enquiry Officer. Petitioner did not respond to the notices issued by the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry proceeded as ex parte, up to 26-07-2001. On that day, it was adjourned to 03-08-2001, with an object of giving opportunity to the petitioner and accordingly, a notice was sent to him. After receiving the notice, the petitioner made a request for postponing the enquiry to 10-08-2001. That request was acceded to. However, the petitioner did not turn up and ultimately, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 24-09-2001. Taking the same into account, the disciplinary authority passed an order, dated 20-11-2001, dismissing the petitioner from service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Sri Srinivasa Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to put forward his case, and the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. He contends that almost on the same allegations, the petitioner was prosecuted in C.C. No.119 of 2001 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhansuwada, and that the same ended in acquittal through judgment dated 09-11-2004. He submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 3. Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature and proved beyond any reasonable doubt. He contends that the petitioner avoided not only to submit the explanation, but also to participate in the enquiry, though number of opportunities were given to him. Learned counsel further submits that the purport of the disciplinary proceedings is substantially different from the subject matter of the Criminal Case, and acquittal therein does not have any impact on the order of dismissal. 4. The gist of the allegation against the petitioner is as under: “While he was functioning as Asst. Manager at Durki branch, on 3.2.2001, he was handling SB Department. While working as such, he had fraudulently withdrew Rs.30,000/- by means of withdrawal slip no.875619 from the SB account no.44 of Sri Godugu China Muthyam at the branch after inflating the existing SB balance of Rs.1067.75 as on 8.1.2001 by Rs.30,000/- by effecting fictitious credit entry and also by preparing the withdrawal slip in his own handwriting by affixing / getting affixed the thumb impression on both sides of the said withdrawal slip and also by debiting the SB account 44 and also issued token no.11 for that withdrawal slip and also the cashier by stating that the party has authorised him to take the payment by presenting the toke no.11. That thereafter on 5.2.2001 he prepared a credit slip for Rs.30,000/- in his own handwriting towards the credit of SB 44 of Sri Chinna Murhyam from which he had fraudulently withdrawn Rs.30,000/- on 3.2.2001 by the mode/means explained above. Thus by his above acts, he had temporarily misappropriated an amount of Rs.30,000/- by fraudulent means. The details of the fraudulent withdrawal and the subsequent reimbursement are more fully described in the Statement of Imputations of Misconduct served on him as referred above.” Accordingly, a charge memo, by invoking Regulation - 3 (1) read with Regulation - 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, was issued. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had inflated the balance in the SB account of a customer, by Rs.30,000/- on 03-02-2001, and had himself withdrawn that amount by preparing a withdrawal slip. It is a different matter that he himself deposited that amount, two days thereafter. 5. When a charge of such serious nature was framed against the petitioner, it was incumbent upon him to file an explanation. However, the petitioner evaded that. Even at that stage, he insisted that he be furnished the list of witnesses and documents, which the respondents intended to rely upon. Necessity to furnish the list would arise if only the explanation offered by the employee is found not satisfactory, and the disciplinary authority proposes to conduct the domestic enquiry. Obviously, the petitioner searched for a lame excuse, to avoid the filing of explanation. 6. Left with no alternative, the respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner does not dispute that he received notices for the domestic enquiry. However, he did not appear in the enquiry. It must be said to the credit of the Enquiry Officer the he meticulously followed the procedure and recorded each and every event that has taken place during the course of enquiry. Even the lunch break was noted and every step such as, submission of facts by the Presiding Officer, production of documents, deposition of the witnesses, were scrupulously recorded. 7. One of the crucial witnesses for the proceedings is MW-2 Clerk / Cashier, who worked at the relevant point of time in the Branch. He stated that Token No.11 was forwarded to him for payment of Rs.30,000/- and when he called the name of the account holder, the petitioner came to the counter and produced the token. Since the petitioner was not the account holder, MW-2 verified as to how and why the token was being produced by the petitioner. The answer given by the petitioner was stated to be that the account holder authorized him to receive the amount. Being a subordinate to the petitioner, the Cashier did not think of raising any further objection and paid the amount. This part of the deposition was not contradicted in any manner, by the petitioner. 8. An important document is the deposit slip, through which a sum of Rs.30,000/- was credited to the same account on 05-02-2001. It was proved to be in the handwriting of the petitioner. Hardly any explanation was forthcoming as to why the petitioner had the necessity or the occasion to remit a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the credit of a customer in his own handwriting. 9. In all fairness to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer adjourned the enquiry to 03-08-2001 and informed the petitioner that he can cross-examine all the witnesses, who were examined by the Management. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner made a request to postpone the enquiry to 10-08-2001. This request was acceded to, but, the petitioner did not turn up on the next date. The Enquiry Officer, ultimately, submitted his report holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. The disciplinary authority took the same into account and passed the order impugned. 10. It is not uncommon that while dealing with a large number of accounts and transactions, the employees of the Bank commit some mistakes during the course of their duties. However, if the mistake is inadvertent, it should not be treated as basis for imposition of penalty of dismissal. Where, however, the acts or omissions are pre-meditated and intended to commit fraud, no indulgence can be shown. On the other hand, effort should be to get rid of such people from service of the Bank. The transactions in the Bank depend, totally upon the confidence of the customers in the organization and that confidence can be ensured only through honesty of the employees. If an employee is dishonest, it would be difficult for any Management to track him throughout. This is more so, with the employees, whose duty is to handle the cash transactions in the branch, particularly in rural areas. There is hardly any doubt about the intention with which the petitioner has withdrawn Rs.30,000/- from the SB account of a customer. 11. Durki is a rural branch, and a person, by name, Chinna Muthyam had a balance of Rs.1,067/- in his account. It appears that the account holder is an illiterate and puts only thumb impression. Petitioner has chosen that account, to commit fraud. The last remittance was said to be made on 08-01-2001. The petitioner, in his own handwriting inflated that balance, by Rs.30,000/- and had arranged a withdrawal slip for that very amount. He has issued a token to himself for that amount and when the Cashier called the number of the token, has gone to the counter and took the amount. Even if one is prone to believe that the petitioner was authorized by the account holder to withdraw the amount, that possibility is ruled out by the subsequent acts of the petitioner. With his own handwriting, he submitted a credit slip on 05-02-2001 and remitted that amount. All this had become part of record and the petitioner did not dispute the correctness of the version of the Management. This is one of the rare cases, where an employee, accused of committing fraud did not leave any scope, either for the Management or for this Court, to show indulgence. 12. It is true that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. However, there is hardly anything, which is common in the departmental proceedings on the one hand and the criminal case on the other. The purport of both of them is different. It is too late in the day to state that the standard of proof that is needed in the departmental proceedings is substantially different from the one, in the criminal case. 13. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 11, 2010. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. B/O. KTL