IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAWISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION Iii 5M“ NO. L/CI‘LI W 7 , PETITIONER : V» Anmol Singh, aged about 4O years, son of Lon‘e Shri Bchorcm Singh Por’re, resident of village Dounjare, pos‘r Lolpur, Pendro Rood, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS / UCO Bank, a registered office OT 97 Ancmd Nagcr, Rcipur, Disirici Raipur (C.G.) “3% Av»- K‘I’ ”7 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE@OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN EORM OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCESOF THE CASE WARRANT '3 . PeTHioner' : Anmol Singh Versus Responden’r : HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wri'r Peti‘rion (s) 494 0f 2007 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Safish K. Agnihofr'i, J. UCO Bank, a regisfered office m’ 97 Anand Nagar, Raipur- (C.6.) Mr. 6.5. AgrawGI, Senior Advoca‘re wifh Mr. UR. Khoshaiey, Advocafe for The pefifioner. ORDER (Passed on 25“ Day of January, 2007) 1. By This peTiTion, fhe peTiTioner impugns the Termina'rion order da'red 17.1.2004 (Annexure P/6), whereunder The appeilm'e aufhori‘ry Le. Genera! Manager (Operafions. E) rejected The appeal againsf 'fhe order éafed 22.2.2003, passed by the discipiinary aufhorify imposing punishmen'r of removal from service wi‘rh superannuaiion benefits i.e.’ Pension and/or Providenf Fund and gratuify as would be due oTherwise under fhe ruies and Regulations prevaiiing at 1he reievan‘r Time and wi‘i'houf disqualificafion from fu‘iure empioymeni’. 2. The indispufabie fac‘l'si in nufsheii, are fhcd' ‘rhe peTiTioner, whiie working as Head Cashier in Cash Seci'ion of The Presem': rx ”35/ Responden'r—Bank, Branch a‘r Masfur-i, was served wi‘rh a charge- shee‘l’ on 27.1.2003 on following charges:- “i) Doing act prejudicial 1’0 fhe inferesf of fhe bank - a gross misconducf as per clause 5 Q) of Setflemenf dafed 10.04.2002. ii) Gross negligence involving serious loss ‘ro 'l’he bank - a gross misconduc’r as per- clause 5 (j) of Sef‘rlemem da‘l’ed 10.04.2002" Several allegafions of fictitious credit enfries in Recurring Deposi‘r Account ledger foiio(s), Thus *empered wiih Bank’s records f0 cover up misappropriation of account holder/(s) money were made. It was alleged that the various acts of commissions and omissions in the course of his duties causes shortage of cash to the tune of Rs. 9,000/— and consequently pecuniary loss to the bank. . The petitioner met the senior officers, but did not submit his reply. He submitted before the authorities that the petitioner be pardoned for the acts of omissions and commissions and expressed his intention to deposit the entire'amount, which was allegedly misappropriated by him. In absence of the reply, the departmental inquiry proceeded by the order dated 31.7.2003 (Annexure P/3). The disciplinary authority i.e. Assistant General Manager passed the order of punishment, as stated above. Thereafter, the petitioner was afforded personal hearing and « v 3 3 6 The order- was finally confirmed Vida order du‘red 20.9.2003 (Annexur'e P/5). 4. Agaipsf The order da‘red 20.9.2003, passed by 'fhe discipiinary aufhori'ry, the peTi‘rioner preferred an appeal before fhe appena're authori'ry Le. General Manager (Operafionsl). The appeliofe aufhori'ry, by his order da‘l'ed 17.1.2004 (Annexure P/6), confirmed ‘rhe order passed by The disciplinary authori‘ry i.e. Assis‘l'an‘r General Manager and rejeci’ed fhe appeal accordingly. 5. Being aggrieved, The pefifioner filed 'rhe insfan‘i pefi‘l'ion impugning The order of The appella'i'e auThoriTy noT on The ground ThaT The inquiry was perverse and finding was based on no evidence, buT on The ground ThaT The peTiTioner belongs To Scheduled Tribe and he should noT be expecTed The same sTandard of working. Thus, The peTiTioner should be given an opporTuniTy of mending himself by quashing The order of removal. The peTiTioner has noT raised any oTher ground seeking indulgence of This CourT in exercise of iTs power under ArTicle 226 of The ConsTiTuTion of India. 6. The above conTenTion of learned counsel for The peTiTioner is noT Tenable. The employee cannoT be disTinguished on The basis of communiTy, casTe, creed, sex and residence. So far as The official duTies are concerned, rules and regulaTions governing conducT and duTies of an employee also do noT disTinguish on The basis of communiTy, casTe, creed, sex and residence.‘ @a Distinguishing from one employee ‘ro ofher employee may be uncons‘iifu‘iional and against The public policy. Thus, *i’his Courf is no? inciined To fake excepfion 1'0 ‘rhe impugned order which even according to fhe pefifioner' is no? bad on any oTher permissible ground i.e. perversity, infirmi‘ry, unconsiii'u’rional and case of no evidence e‘l'c. v . The Supreme CourT in caTena of decisions and recenTly in The case of Smie Bank of India and others Vs. ,Romesh Dinkar Pundei held Thai an employee holds a position of frus‘r where honesty and infegri'iy are inbuili' requiremen‘rs of funciioning, i? would no‘i' be proper 'l'o deal wi‘ih The ma‘H’er leniem'ly. In The banking business, absolu‘ie devo‘l’ion, diligence, infegrify and honesfy needs fo be preserved by every bank employee. If is for fhis reason fha‘r when a bank officer commifs misconducf, as in The presenf case, for his personal ends and againsf fhe inferesf of The bank and The deposiTors, he musT be dealT wiTh iron hands and he does noT deserve To be dealT wiTh lenienTly. IT is well seTTled principle of law ThaT The scope of judicial review is limiTed To The deficiency in decision-making process noT The decision. In The presenT case, There is no raTionaliTy, iilegaliTy or procedural irregulariTy, which require inTerference in The finding of The enquiry officer and The decision of The disciplinary auThoriTy for imposiTion of punishment Ml 4 V,” 9. As a result and for The reason-sm‘red hereinabove, fhe wri? pefifion deserves to be an is dismissed summarily. No order as f0 cos‘rs. Sdl— . ; Satish K. Agnihotrl f Judge S 1. (2006) 7 SCC 212 s d : s,