Canara Bank & Ors vs Swapan Kumar Pani & Anr

The first respondent at all material time was working as Accountant, in Jajpur Road, Orissa Branch of Canara Bank, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). It is stated that in the said capacity he used to hold one set of keys of the locker of the bank. Another set of keys used to be in the custody of the Manager of the Bank. Admittedly on the ground that he had committed a misconduct; a departmental proceeding was proposed to be held in terms of Regulation 6 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline &Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (Regulations) wherefor the following Articles of Charge were served on the first respondent:

The gist of the charge contained in the said article of charge, thus, was that the first respondent had unauthorisedly and with ulterior motive removed the special bearer bonds worth Rs. 2 lacs from the bank's safe custody on 6.11.1985 on which date he was holding the second set of keys of the double lock having obtained the keys from the Manager's drawers and while removing the said bonds kept blank sheets of B-2 register therein. The said bearer bonds had been taken as collateral security from M/s Utkal Iron and Steel Industries towards sanctioning of M.L. Limit of Rs. 10 lacs.

In the departmental proceedings he was found to be not guilty of the said charges pursuant whereto he was exonerated by an order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.3.1989. Again a charge-sheet containing almost identical charges was issued on 31.3.1989. The allegations made against the first respondent in the said charge sheet were that the said bearer bonds had been last seen by him in July, 1985 and thereafter he failed to verify the existence thereof. Though he was one of the holders of the keys the bank double lock and a certificate was issued by him as regards the existence of the said bearer bonds without actually verifying their availability he committed a misconduct. The charge against him in short was that he had failed to protect the bank's interest and exposed it to financial loss and that he had failed to discharge his official duties with devotion and diligence. Another departmental proceeding was initiated whereupon the Inquiry Officer submitted a report. It is, however, accepted that the said matter was not further proceeded against.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition by an order dated 12.4.2000. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith the first respondent preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which has been allowed by a Division Bench of the said High Court by reason of the impugned judgment holding (1) The Managing Director of the Bank could not have taken recourse to Regulation 18, as no punishment had been imposed upon the first respondent. (2) In any event the power under Regulations 18 could have been exercised within a period of six months only and not thereafter.(3) Regulation 21 which empowers the bank to extend the time could not have been invoked in the fact of the case. (4) As the charge sheet was issued in terms of the said order of review, the same was liable to be quashed.

We are, however, of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing back wages to the first respondent herein need not be interfered with .

For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant bank being Civil Appeal No. 1641 of 2004 is dismissed. The appeal filed by the first respondent being Civil Appeal No. 1642 of 2004 is allowed in part and to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. There shall be no order as to costs.