HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 31607 of 1997 ORDER: The Guntur Women Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Guntur has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the order passed by the first respondent in S.A.No.5 of 1996 dated 27.09.1997, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 09.12.1996, as arbitrary and illegal. Facts, in brief, are that the third respondent was working as a clerk in the petitioner-bank. On 22.07.1994, she was alleged to have prepared a remittance slip dated 11.07.1994 for Rs.5,000/- in her own handwriting to be credited into Savings Bank Account No.1091 as if the account holder had deposited the said amount; no such amount had actually been remitted; the third respondent had attempted to get it passed by the accountant who, on detecting the fabrication, chose not to pass the slip; the remittance slip did not contain the signature of the account holder and further there was a discrepancy in the words and figures of the amount. A memo was issued to the third respondent on 23.07.1994 and, in reply thereto, the third respondent, vide letter dated 01.08.1994, admitted her guilt and requested that she be exonerated. A charge memo dated 30.09.1994 was issued and the third respondent was kept under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. It is the case of the third respondent that the account holder had confirmed to the bank that he had nothing to do with the remittance slip nor did he deposit the said amount on the relevant date. The third respondent, however, chose not to submit her explanation to the charge memo but requested for certain documents. An advocate was appointed as the enquiry officer vide proceedings dated 11.10.1994. Though the enquiry officer issued notice dated 17.10.1994 calling upon the third respondent to submit her explanation, neither did she respond nor did she submit her explanation and, therefore, another notice was issued on 29.10.1994 fixing the date of enquiry as 05.11.1994. The third respondent sought time to peruse the documents on 05.11.1994; the enquiry was adjourned to 10.11.1994; a notice was again issued on 12.11.1994 informing the third respondent that the enquiry would be held on 18.11.1994; and thereafter a telegraphic notice was sent. The third respondent was called absent on 18.11.1994. Subsequently, on 28.11.1994, the third respondent was present with her advocate. She perused the documents and confirmed the fact of such perusal except with regards two documents. The enquiry was adjourned to 30.11.1994 on which date the third respondent was present but chose not to submit any explanation; on the next date of enquiry i.e. 02.12.1994, the third respondent was again absent; and the matter was adjourned to 12.12.1994, on which date she was initially present but left the proceedings abruptly. The enquiry officer examined PWs.1 and 2, marked Exs.M.1 to M.8, and adjourned the enquiry to 15.12.1994 to afford one more opportunity to the delinquent. Since the third respondent was not present on 15.12.1994, the enquiry officer considered the material on record and submitted his report. A show cause notice was issued to the third respondent on 30.12.1994 asking her to show cause why she should not be removed from service. A copy of the enquiry report, along with the related records, was enclosed to the said show cause notice. The third respondent chose not to submit any reply to the show cause notice. Subsequently proceedings dated 16.01.1995 was issued removing the third respondent from service. The third respondent, thereafter, invoked the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). The second respondent, in his order dated 09.12.1996, observed that, while the third respondent was permitted to peruse four of the six documents she had sought for, the other two documents i.e. cashier’s scroll dated 11.07.1994, and the extract of the suspense account in respect of Rs.5,000/- made on 11.07.1994, were not supplied to her which had resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to her. The second respondent noted that the enquiry officer had, in his report, observed that an employee of a bank was never expected to create fictitious accounts; if bank accounts were tampered, which was done in this case, there was no safety for the customers accounts; and the credibility of the bank would be damaged. The second respondent held that these observations of the enquiry officer revealed his biased mind. Curiously, the second respondent did not even take note of the admission of the guilt of the third respondent in her letter dated 01.08.1994. It was only on the ground of failure to supply the two documents that the second respondent had quashed the order of punishment, and had declared the enquiry report to be null and void. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the first respondent who, in his order dated 27.09.1997, observed that the third respondent had pleaded guilty with a view that she would be excused if she admitted her guilt; a letter in writing was given with a view to exonerate the delinquent employee against the allegations of forgery and mischief; and the officers concerned had stabbed her in her back by obtaining such a letter, and had not exonerated her of the charges. With regards non-supply of the two documents, the appellate authority took note of the submission made by the petitioner that the suspense account of Rs.5,000/- was not available as there was no suspense account on 11.07.1994, and the cashier’s scroll dated 11.07.1994 had been torn. Curiously, the first respondent-appellate authority holds that the petitioner had blatantly torn out the cashier’s scroll, and the third respondent had failed to attend the enquiry only because these vital documents were not furnished to her Both the orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are perverse and are based on no evidence. It defies reason as to how the two documents, one of which was not in existence and the other was torn, could have been supplied to the third respondent. It is not even the case of the third respondent that either the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority of the petitioner-bank had relied on these two documents to substantiate the charges and, as a result of non-furnishing of those two documents, she had suffered prejudice. The third respondent has unequivocally admitted her guilt in her letter dated 01.08.1994. She chose not to submit any explanation to the charge memo or participate in the departmental enquiry except for her token presence on a couple of occasions. She chose not to submit her reply to the show cause notice prior to imposition of the punishment of removal from service. While the letter of admission is dated 01.08.1994, the third respondent filed an application for the first time, before the second respondent, long after she was imposed the punishment of removal from service. If, indeed, the letter dated 01.08.1994 was given under compulsion or coercion or duress, the third respondent ought to have retracted from her confession at the earliest. Her long and inordinate silence, during the course of the enquiry proceedings or at any stage prior to the order of removal being passed by the disciplinary authority on 16.01.1995, would cast a cloud on her claim of having submitted the letter, of admission of guilt, only on compulsion. In Secretary to the Panchayat Raj v. Mohd.Ikramuddin[1] the Supreme Court held that the charges against a delinquent employee were proved on his own admission and no further enquiry was necessary under law. In Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Karunamoy Banerjee[2], the Supreme Court held that, where the charged delinquent employee admits his guilt, it is wholly unnecessary to hold a departmental enquiry. In State Bank of India v. Bela Bagchi[3] the Supreme Court observed:- “……..A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer / employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik[4], it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance…….” (emphasis supplied) In the present case, not only has the third respondent admitted her guilt in her letter dated 01.08.1994, she also chose not to submit her explanation to the charge memo or cross- examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner-bank during the enquiry proceedings or even submit her reply to the show cause notice wherein she was informed that the petitioner- bank proposed to impose on her the punishment of removal from service. The plea before the second respondent, more than a year after the letter of admission, that the said letter was given under compulsion is, evidently, an afterthought. While the second respondent does not even deal with the letter of admission in his order dated 19.12.1996, the first respondent-appellate authority, in his order dated 27.09.1997, holds that the letter of confession was given by the delinquent employee only with a view to exonerate her of the charges. This finding, to say the least, is perverse. Both the orders of the first and the second respondents are, therefore, quashed. As a result, the order of punishment of removal from service, imposed by the petitioner-bank on the third respondent, shall revive and operate. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:30.09.2010 usd [1] (1996) 32 Administrative Tribunals Cases 198 [2] AIR 1968 SC 266 [3] 2005(7) SCC 435 [4] 1996 (9) SCC 69