C.OURT OF CHHATTISGARH_AT_iiL^SP.UR Hon'bSe Shri K.L. CJ. Petitioner Rtspondent Wnt No.1303 of 1990 Chandra Sekhar Pandey, S/Q Shlv Bahadur Pandey, Ex-Officer Allahabad Bank, Durg, by his !egai representatives : 1. Smt Chandrakali Pandey, widow of Late Chandra Sekhar Panciey, aged about 62 years .2. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, son of Late Chandra Sekhar Pandey, aged about 36 years 3. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, son of Late Chandra Sekhar Pandey, aged about 34 years 4. Shravan Kumar Pandey, son of Late Chandra Sekhar Pandey, aged about 33 years versus Aliahabad Bank, through its Chairman & Managing Director, 2, Netaji Subhash .Road, Calcutta. Present : Shri BP.Sharma, counsel for the petltionen Shri P.S.Koshy, counsel forthe respondent A ORAL oii 23"i March, An officer of Allahabad Bank was before thls Court, inter alia, questioning the correctness or othewise ofthe orders passed by the appeiiate authority and the orders passed by the disciplinary authorlty of the BanK. Durlng the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has expired. With the permlssion of this Court, the legai representatives of the petitioner have come on record and they are prosecutlng this v^rit petitlon. (2) The brieffactsare :- While the petitioner was aiive he was worklng as an officer in the Durg Branch of the respondent - Bank He was seived with a charge-memo dated ^, J 24.12.1986. in the charge-memo, it was alieged that by his acts of omissions and oommissions, said to have been '.done by him duhng the period 25.11.1983 to 1.10.1984, he has committed acts of misconduct unworthy ofan officer of the Bank and thereby has exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty as an ofncer of the Bank. Aiong wlth the charge-memo, he v/as se^ed with a statement of imputations, iist of v^itnesses and the doouments in support of the charge-memo. Though the c-harge memo was served on.the deSinquent.offjcer, he did not choose to fiie any repiy to the assertions and aiiegations made in the charge-memo. (3) The discipiinary authority of the Bank, in order to ho!d an enquiry against the dellnquent officer in respect of the aliegations made in the charge" memo, had appolnted one Shri S.&Chakraborty and later on he was repiaced by one Shri S.R.Chakraborty as enquiry officer. Shri S.G.Vaidya was appointed as a presentlng ofrlcer to present the case on behaif of the discjphnary authority in supporl: ofthe aliegations made in the charge-memo. (4) Before the enquiry offlcer, the disciplinary authority had examined flve witnesses (M.W.-1 to M.W.-5) and had marked neariy one hundred and five documents in support ofthe ailegations made in the charge-memo. (5) The deiinquent officer had examined himseif, but did not choose tc examine any witnesses. (6) After holding an enqulry in aocordance with the procedure prescribed under the Aiiahabad Bank Offlcer Employees5 (Conciuot) and (Discipline & Appeal) Reguiations, 1976 (hsnceforth Ethe Regulations, 19762) and following the pnncipie of "audi aiterem partemyi, the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the detinquent officer Is guitty of the charges aiieged in the charge-memo. (7) After receipt of the report of the enqulry offioer along with the evidence and the documents cn record, the discipiinary authority, after considering the ^?1 evidence on record, both orai and documenta^ and repo?1: of the enquip/ officer, has accepted the same and in view of the gravity of the misconduct said to have been proved against the deiinquent orflcer, has imposed a punishment ofdlsmissal from sen/ice by his orderdated 13.10.1987. (8) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the disclpiinary authority, the deiinquent officer had fited an appeal before ths first appeilate -authority as provided under the Regulations, 1976. The first appellate authority, after considering the various grounds urged by the appeliant/petitioner befor'e him, has proceeded to reject the appeal and has oonfirmed the order passed by the discipiinan/ authority, by his order dated 26-8-1988. The same is communicated to the deiinquent officer on 14-09-1988. (9) Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner is before this Court in the present wnt petition. (10) Shri B.RSharma, iearned counse! appearing for the petitioner, has raised three contentions betbre me. They are, that proper opportunlty of hearing was not given to the deiinquent officer by the enquiry officer, the disoiplinary authority and the appeilate authority. EEaborating on this issue, the learned counsei would submit that the enquiry officer had not faithfutly foilowed the procedure prescribed under the ReguSations, 1976 while hoiding the enquin/. The seoond Issue raised by the learned counsel is that the order passed by the first appetlate authority is a iaconic orde.r, in the sense that 11 is nct a spea.klng order and, therefore, the order passed by the first appeiiate authority requires to be set aside. Lastiy, the learned counsel wou!d submit that the respondent—Bank had filed a oivi! suit against the account hoSders of the Bank, who, according to the disciptlnary authority ofthe Bank, had issued seif oheques to the petitioner to withdraw the money and fbr the same cause of action, the Bank had filed a civil suit and the civsl suit has been decreed in favour ofthe Bank and, therefore, the Bank cannot contend in one breath that the delinquent orficer has mis-utilized the funds of the Bank and at the same time could not have filed a civil suit against the account holders.tbr recovery of the amounts which were credited in their accounts by mistake. !n view of a!i these, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner wouid submit that the orders passed by the first appeilate authority and the discipiinary authority require to be set aside by this Court and a dlrection requires to be jssued to the Bank to award monetary beneflts to the Sega! representatives of the delinquent officer, who expired during the pendency of this wrlt petltion. (11) in support of the aforesaid contentions, .iearned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the several decisions of the Apex Court. They are vs. Snciia Insuwnce Co- LtA and reported In 4 SCG 713, State of U.P. vs. Lsl snd reported in 6 651, vs» Unmn reported in (1995) 6 SCC 748, snd vs. D.C.Aggarwaf and anoth^r, reported m (1993) 1 13, of and vs, K©.Som,reported Iii 8 794 and vs. & and in 1 (12) Per contra, Shri P.S.Koshy, iearned counsel appearing for tne respondent - Bank, wouid submit that merefy because the Bank had filed a cMi suit against some of the account hoiders of the Bank would not absolve tne petitioner from the ailegations made in the charge-memo. The iearned counse! would submit that the omissions and commisslons committed by the deiinquent officer whiSe working in the Durg Branch of the respondent- Bank wouid constitute an act of mlsconduct, which Is in vioiation of Rule 3(1) of the F^egutations, 1976. The learned counse! wouid further submit that the enquiry ofticer, after a detaiied enquiry, has come to the concluslon that the dellnquent offscer Is guitty of the charges alteged In the charge-memo and which view of the enquiry officer ss accepted by the discipiinary authority after careful analysis of the report of the enquiry officer, evidence on recorc both oral and documentary- and, therefore, thss Court, in exercise of its power of jucicial (^^ < reviev^should not unsettie the findings of fact recorded by the enquiry officer and the orders passed by the discipiinary and the appeiiate authorities. (13) To expiain the concept of judicial review in the matter of dlscipilnary proceedings, the learned counsei for the respondent reiies upon the obsen/ations made by the Apex Court in the matter of Unian of indi^ anofftervs. S.&Chafyryecff, reported io 6 749 and aiso reiles upon the subsequent decision rendered by the Apex Court. (14) Learned counse! for the respondent - Bank wouid further submit that mere!y because the respondent - Bank had filed some civi! suit for recovery of amounts from the account holders in whose accounts the delinquent offioer had credited the demand drafts issued by two other account holders, \wuid not absoive the petitioner from the allegations made in the charge-memo. For all these reasons, iearned counsei for the respondent - Bank would submit that the interference with the orders passed by the dlscipiinan/ authority is not cailed for. (15) !n order to appreciate the contentions canvassed by learned oounsei appearing for the parties to the lis, the charge-memo and the statement of imputations issued and sen/ed by the disciplinar^ authority of the Bank on the delinquent officer requires to be noticed. Therefore, they are extracted and they are as under:- l!ZO/VIG-36/0087-i7 24.12.1986 CHARGE-SHEET The undersigned proposes to hoid an inquiry against Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey (under suspension) Ex-Officer, Durg branch, under Reguiation 6 of t'ne Aliahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Discipilne & Appeal) Reguiations, 1976. The substance of the impijtations of the miscondud in respect cf which the inquiry is proposed to be held, is set out in the enclosed statement of articies or charge (Annexure-i). A '2&S f- ..^' statement of imputations of misconduct in support of each article of charges is enciosed (Annexure-ii). A iist of documents by whlch and a iist -of witnesses by whom the articies of charge are propoeed to bs sustained are also enclosed respectiveiy. (Annexures itl & IV). 2. The said Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey Is dsrected to submit within 10 days frorn the date of receipt of thls charge sheet a written statement of his defenoe and aiso to state v^hether he desires to be heard in person. 3. The said Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey is further informed that jf he does not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specifsed in para 2 above or does not appear in person before ths inquiring authority or othewise fails or refused to compiy with provisions of Aiiahabad Bank Officer Empioyees1 (Discipiine & Appeai) Regulat5ions, 1976 or the orders/directions issued in pursuance of the sald reguiatiQns, the inquiring authority may hoid the jnqulry agajnsthim ex-parte. 4. The attention of the said Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey is invited to Reguiation 12 ofthe Allahabac Bank Offjoer Empioyees' (Conduot) Reguiations, 1976 under which no empioyee of.the Bank shali bring or attempt to bnng any politicai or outside infiuence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his sen/ioe in the Bank. jf any representation is -received on his behalf from anather person in respect of any matter deait with in these proceedings, It wili be presumed that the said Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey is aware of suoh representation and that it has been made at hls instance and action wllt be taken against him for vjoiation of the Reguiation 12 of the Aii'ahabad Bank Officer Empioyees7 (Conduct) Ruies, 1976. 5. The said Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey has our permission to visit Durg branoh, if he so deslres, for the 2&i F purpose of verification of relevant records/documents with a view to enable him to submit his reply to this ietter within the time iimit permjtted/aliowed for the purpose. He is further informed that no duty ieave, traveiling expenses/T.A. or DA. ete. wouid be payable to hsm. 6. The receipt of the memorandurn may be acknow!edged. Sd/- (B.P.Saxena) Assistant Generai Manager & Disciplinary' Authority To, Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Ex-Officer, Durg Branch, (under suspension) C/o Aiiahabad Bank, Regionat Office, Bhopal." ^ "Statement of Artlcles of Charge framed against Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Ex-Officer, Aiiahabad Bank, Durg branch. That the said Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey whiie functloning as an officer of Allahabad Bank, Durg branch (M.P.) during the period from 25.11.1983 to 1.10.1984 committed gross misoonduct in as much as he feiied to maintain absotute integrity and devotion to duty as he, while functioning as such received 8 (eight) Bank draftsof M/s M. Farei Hussain M. Habib Bhai and M/s Mohania! Bhagwati Prasad amounting to Rs.1,00,300/- for creditjng the proceeds of drafts in the respective accounts, whereas, in fact, he managed to credit the amount of Bank drafts in the account of other persons and subsequently managed to obtaln cheques from the concerned persons and obtained payment of Rs.1,00,100/-. Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey by his above acts exhibited laok of integrity and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the Bank thereby violated Ruie 3(1) of ^- ^: Allahabad Bank Regulations, 1976. Officer Employees3 (Conduct) Sd/- (B.P.Saxena) AssistantGeneral Manager& Disciptinary Authority" "State of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour in support of the articles of charge framed agalnst Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Officer, AiSahabad Bank, Durg Branch (14. P.) > < Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey v^as functloning as an officer of Allahabad Bank, Durg branoh during the period from 25.11.1983 to 1.10.1984. Shri Pandey, as an officer ofthe Bank received 8 (eight) demand drafts of M/s Farei Hussain M. Habib Bhai and M/s Mohaniai Bhagvv'ati Prasad for a totat amount of Rs.1,00,300/- for crediting the proceeds thereof in thejr respective accounts with the branch. However Shri C.S.Pandey managed to credit the amounts of the said drafts in the accounts of other account hoiders in the books of account of the branch. The detaiis of drafts and names of the account holders in vv/hose accounts the amount of drafts was vy'rongiy credited or given in Appendix 'A5 hereof. Shri QS.Pandey on different dates managed to obtain various cheques as mentioned in Appendix 'A? from the aforesaid account holders and obtained the payment from the branch thereagainst Shrl CS.Pandey by his above acts exhlbited iack of integrity and devotlon to duty as an officer of the Bank violating Ruie 3(1) of Aiiahabad Bank Officer Empioyees5 (Conduct) Reguiations, 1976," Sd/- (B.P.Saxena) Assistant General Manager & Discipiinan/ Authority13 "DETASLS OF BANK DRAFTS AND THE NAiVlE OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDERS IN WHOSE ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT OF DRAFTS WAS CREDITED (16) in the charge-memo, the disclpljnan/ authority of the respondent Bank has stated that when the petitloner was discharging his duties as an offlcer of the Bank during the period from 25.11.1983 to 1.10.1984 had committed a gross mlsconduct and had failed to maintain hls absolute integrity and devotion to the duty. The reason being, he had received eight Bank Drafts of M/s M. Farel Hussain M. Habib Bhai and M/s Mohanjal Bhagwati Prasad amounting to Rs.1,00,300/- for crediting the proceeds ofthe drafts in their respective accounts. The disciplinary authority has further that the delinquent officer had managed to credit the amount of the Bank Drafts in the accounts of the other four persons, namely, Santosh Kumar Verma, Lekhraj Meghani, M/s Satish Construction and Amrit Pratap Das and thereafter managed to obtain self cheques from those account hoiders 'and^oDtained payment ofRs.1,00,100/-" [Emphasis suppiied by me] and the aforesaid action of the delinquent ofricer would exhibit the !ack of integrity and ocnduct unbecoming of an officer of the Bank and thereby violated Rule 3(1) of tne 81. ] Partlcujars No. j ofdraft 1 j Amount Nameof the Payee Name of the account holder In whose account the amount of drafts was actualjy credlted Amount and date of withdrawals 1. No.402739 dt. 22.11.83 Rs.10,000/- M.Farel Hussain M. Hablb Shal Santosh Kumar Verma Rs.5,000/-of26,11.S3 ^7 -No;509018 dt. 23.12.80 -Rs.10,OOOA Mohanial Bhagwatl Prasad -do- Rs.5,000/'-of5.12^3' Rs.5,000/-of7.1.34 ~37 No. 144294 dt 29.12.83 Rs.3,600/- ~=s^ ~^~ Rs.2,500/-of5.1.84 ~47 No. 144363 dt. 8.2.84 Rs.6,100/- ^d&-- Lekhraj Meghani Rs.3,000/- of 16.2.84 Rs.S.OOO/.of 28.2.84 -5- N0.509218 dt.24.12.84 Rs.10,000^ -do~ Satlsh Conslructlon Rs.5,000/- of 30.3.84 Rs.6,600/-of 22.10.84 ~e~ No.331325 dt. 22.8.84 Rs.31,601.40 ^do^ -do« Rs.10,000/-of 26.10.84 Rs.5,000/- of 7.4.84 Rs.5,QOO/-of 5.10.84 Rs.10,000^-of 5.10,84 ~T N0.509349 dt.24.3.84 Rs.15,000/- ~-QO-~ AmritPratap Das Rs.5,OOC-/- of 14.3.84 Rs.5,000/- of 15.3.84 Rs.5,000/-of 7.5.84 -8- No.0032029 dt 30.4.84 Rs.14,000/- "^do^ ^do^ Rs.5,000/- of 24.4.8T Rs.10,000/-of 7.5.84" 10 ^ -••< Regulations, 1976. An anaiysis of the charge-memo and the statement of imputations, wouid olearly demonstrate, that the deilnquent offjcer, whiie he was functioning as an officer in the Durg Branch of the respondent ~ Bank, had recelved eight Bank Drafts from two account hoiders for crediting the proceeds of the drafts in their accounts, but had managed it to credit the proceeds of those Bank Drafts in the name. of four other difrerent acoount holders and thereafter by utllizing the self cheques of those four account hoiders, obtained payment ofRs. 1,00,1 OO/-. Atthis stage, it is usefui to refer to the CjVJ! suit fiied by the Bankjust within a span of six months from the date of issuance of the charge-rnemo. (17) in the piaint fited, the Bank has stated in the case of Shri Santosh Kumar Verma, that, he had purchased a tixed deposit of Rs.14,000/- on 22.08.1993 and had availed an advance agalnst it and on different dates by issuing oheques had withdrawn the amounts, knowing fully well that by mistake, wrong credit entries were made in hls name and, therefore, the Bank had requested the Court for a judgment and decree for refund of the amounts drawn by him on different dates with interest thereof. The same is the case in the case of Lekhraj Meghani, M/s Satish Construction and Shri Amrit Pratap Das. (18) At the time of hearing this writ petition, i was told by Snri B.P.Sharma, learned oounse! for the petitloner, that exoept one case, in al! other cases the Bank has obtained judgment and decree In its favour agalnst the defendants, in the suit (19) The enqulry officer in his report dated 15-09-1987, after hoiding^a detalled enquir^, has conciuded as under :- "Thus considering the above facts and circumstanoes, the evidences adduced before the enquiiy and the manner by which Shri C.S.Pandey managed to credit wrong entries in, 4 different accounts of Durg Branoh, T 11 thereafter, managed.to obtain seif-drawn cheques from them. With the plea of adjusting the wrong credits, cleariy exhibits Shri Pande/s direct snvoivement in this forgery in Durg Branch. In this connection, i enctose a letter with other reiative papers recelyed from Shri Santosh Kumar Verma; one of the 4 account holders in v/nose account the v^rong oredits have been made, may kindiy be taken into consideration v^hije assessing the seriousness ofthe offence ofShri CS.Pandey. i hold that the charge against Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey has been conciusively proved. The above acts of Shri Pandey has cSeariy exhiblted iack of integrity and conduct unbecoming ccf a Bank Officer, thereby viofated Ruie 3(1) of AiSahabad Bank Officer-Emp!oyees! (Conduct) Reguiatlons, 1976." ^< (20) The disciplinary authority of the respondent - Bank, whsle issuing the oharge-memo, had not even thought of the 'forgen/ said to have been committed by the delinquent officer. (21) The question, that would arise for my consideration and deoision, Is whether the dlsciplinary authority, having issued the charge-memo and thereafter having filed the civi! suit for recovery of the amounts from the four account hoiders of the Bank on the ground that they have withdrawn certain amounts, which were credited into their aocounts by mistake, wouid constitute an act of misconduct and whether the disciplinar^ authority was justified in imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service? (22) In the oharge-memo, as I have already noticed that the petitioner, while dischajging his functlons as an ofricer of tne Duig Branch of the respondent ~ Bank, had received eight drafts from M/s M. Farel Hussain !v!. Habib Bhai and M/s Mohanla! Bhagwati Prasad amounting to Rs.1,00,300/- for crediting the proceeds of the drafts in their respective accounts, but he managed to deposit the proceeds of those drafts in the name of the four other r 12 aocount hoiders of the Bank and thereafter by obtainlng se!f cheques had obtained a payment of Rs.1 ,OG\1 OO/-. (23) in the civi! suit fiied by the Bank, it has categoricaiiy stated that certain wrong entries were made b-y the Bank in the name of those four account holders and taking advantage of those wrong entries, the defendants in the olvi! suit, nameiy, Santosh Kumar Verma, Lekhraj Meghani, M/s Satish Construction and Amrit Pratap Das had withdrawn the money. That only means that it is not the delinquent offjcer who had wlthdrawn the money which was deposited in the name of four account hoiders. Fiiing of tne civi! sult by the respondent - Bank for a judgment and decree against those four account hotders v^ould cleariy show that it is not the delinquent ofticer who had taken advantage of the wrong entries made In the acoounts of those tbur account holders. Apart from this fact, the Bank has obtained decrees against the four account hoiders and this aspect of the matter should have taken note of by the discipilnary authority or at least by the appeliate authority before impQslng any punishment on the delinquent offlcer. In a more or less simiiar sjtuation in the oase of JasNr vs. ^ Slnd aiid 1 the Apex Court obse^ed as under: "In the present case, the respondent Bank invited findings of a competent civii court on the issue as to whether the appellant had committed any embezzlement or not. Embezziement of fund vvas the principal charge against the appeiiant in atl the proceedings. The respondent Bank failed to prove any of the charges befbre any court of iaw. The judgment in ojvll matter having attained finallty, was blnding on the respondent Bank." r In the said case, the Court further obsen/ed as under : "in a case of thls nature, the High Couri: shouid have applied its mind to the facts of the matter with referenoe to the materiais brought on records. ft faiied T 13 to do so and did not take note of the decision of the civil court. !t could not have refused to !ook intQ the materiais on record. Therefbre, the impugned juagment cannot be sustained." ^n • •s. ^^ (24) This aforesaid aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the first appeliate authority before mechanlcaiiy proceeding to confirm th-e order passed by the discipiinary authority. (25) In view of the above, in my opinion, the retief sought for by the petltioner requires to be granted. Accordingiy, the foSiowing (i) The writ petltion is allowed in part. The impugned orders passed by the discipiinary authority and conflrmed DV the appellate authority are quashed. (ii) Since the petitioner has expired during the pendency of this writ petition, question of his reinstatement in the sen/ioe wouid not anse. (iii) The legal representatives of the deceased petltioner, l.e., the delinquent ofricer are entitted for the arrears of the saiapy and other monetary benefits from the date the deiinquent oftlcer was dlsmissed from the sen/Jce ti!! the date of payment. (Iv) In view of the above, the other two issues raised by learned counsel for the petitioner need not be considered by me. Ordered accordingly. | Sd/- Chief Justice