Devotion, Integrity and Honesty is a Sine Qua Non for every Bank employee: Supreme Court of India

Dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 13th of Allahabad the instant appeals have been preferred at the that the appellant is a statutory body incorporated and constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955. The respondent joined service as a Cashier Clerk in Mumfordganj Branch Allahabad on 07th December 1981. While on duty a misconduct was committed by him for which he was placed under suspension in the first place by order dated 14th August 1995 and later the charge­sheet dated 11th April 1996 was It may be relevant to note that for the self­same Sections 420 467 468 471 IPC read with Section 120­B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of After the charge­sheet dated 11th April 1996 was served the denying all the charges. The enquiry officer was thereafter Bipartite Settlement applicable for award staff of Nationalized Bank. The respondent had participated in the disciplinary enquiry and the enquiry officer after holding enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Bipartite Settlement applicable for award staff of Nationalized Bank furnished his report of enquiry dated 22nd May 1999 to the In his report dated 22nd May 1999 it has been noticed by the enquiry that he neither wants to say anything about the to substantiate his statement in defence regarding fictitious On 16.02.1994 saving bank account no.12215 of Shri I.S Vermawas debited with Rs.1 09 600 ­ and To prove the above allegation charge the presenting officer Debit voucher dated 16.02.1994 for Rs.1 09 600.00 relating to general account through schedule No.4 for Rs.4 87 300 and this amount was first posted in saving bank account No.7547 in favor of Shri K.C. Miglani. This amount was subsequently withdrawn in instalments on 25.03.1994 and 04.04.1994 and amount of Rs.89 150 and Rs.10 000 were misappropriated by him through credit to his current account No. P­15 on the To prove the above allegations charges the presenting officer Branch clearing general account schedule No.4 dated 25.03.1994 for Rs.4 87 300 Saving bank credit voucher dated 25.03.1994 for Rs.4 87 300 pertaining to saving bank account No.7547 of Shri K.C Debit voucher dated 25.03.1994 for Rs.2 36 550 pertaining to pertaining to current account No. P­51 of Shri Ajay Kumar PEX­8: Debit voucher dated 04.04.1994 for Rs.2 40 750 pertaining to current account No. P­51 of Shri Ajay Kumar Ledger sheet of current account No. P­15 of Shri Ajay Kumar On 22.09.1994 Shri Srivastava conspired with some staff members at the branch with a view to defraud the bank and accordingly a fake debit of Rs.5 00 000 ­ was raised in branch’s saving bank a c and out of the above an amount of Rs.2 00 000 ­ was misappropriated by him through credit to his To prove the above allegation charge the presenting officer Bank and accordingly a fake debit of Rs.5 30 000 was raised in Branch’s current Account and out of the above amount an misappropriated by him through affording of credit to his current Account No. P­51 and Saving Bank A c. No.11068 Rs.2 50 000.00 and Rs.25 000 ­ To prove the above allegation charge the presenting officer PEX­15 Debit voucher dated 30.12.1994 for Rs.5 30 000 ­ PEX­17 Saving bank credit voucher dated 30.12.1994 Rs.25 000 ­ pertaining to saving bank a c no.11068 of Smt PEX­18 Ledger sheet of saving bank a c no.11068 of Smt of Rs.2 30 000 in the S.B. A.C. No.11068 fvg. Smt. Rashmi To prove the above allegation charge the presenting officer PEX­19 Debit voucher dated 30.05.1995 for Rs.2 30 000 ­ pertaining to saving bank account no.11068 of Smt. Rashmi PEX­20 Current A c credit voucher dated 30.05.1995 Rs.2 30 000 ­ pertaining to current a c no. P­51 of Smt of Rs.3 60 000 in the S.B. A c No.11068 fvg. Smt. Rashmi got its part amount of Rs.3 00 000 credited to his current To prove the above allegation charge the presenting officer PEX­22 Current A c credit vouchers dated 31.05.1995 for Rs.3 00 000 ­ pertaining to current a c no. P­51 of Sri Ajay On 20.10.1993 Shri Srivastava borrowed Rs.35 000.00 from To prove the above allegation charge the presenting officer PEX­26A Saving bank credit voucher dated 29.10.1993 for PEX­27 Debit voucher dated 20.10.1993 for Rs.35 000 ­ PEX­28 Current a c credit vouchers dated 20.10.1993 for Rs.35 000 ­ pertaining to current a c no. P­51 of Shri Ajay After copy of the detailed report of enquiry was made available the disciplinary authority took pains to revisit the reference to Charge Nos.2­7 proved by the enquiry officer dated 29th June 1999 along with his finding of disagreement(for enquiry to the respondent delinquent calling for his written communication made by the disciplinary authority dated 29th the same time in reference to other Charge Nos. 2 to 7 which were held to be proved and prima facie accepted by the disciplinary authority no specific objection was raised of any rebuttal not been considered by the enquiry officer or of any breach of the procedure prescribed in holding disciplinary enquiry or violation of the principles of natural justice raised vague objections of general in nature without supporting any documentary oral evidence and one of the objection of the pending trial investigation by the CBI and the conclusion of departmental enquiry without awaiting the outcome of the investigation trial instituted against him in a pending criminal authority revisited the record of enquiry including the enquiry report the explanation furnished by the respondent while its prima­facie opinion which he has expressed in his communication dated 29th June 1999 and in terms of Para 521(5)(a) of the Sastry Award read with Para 18 28 of the Desai Award as modified by the 12th Bipartite Settlement dated 14th February 1995 between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation confirmed the penalty of 10. The respondent preferred departmental appeal against his specific averment in the appeal as to what was the procedural error being committed by the enquiry officer in holding certain ulterior reasons if any and no specific objection was him other than general objections which are vague and 11. The departmental appeal was examined by the appellate para 2 of the order of the appellate authority and after going through record of enquiry and taking note of the nature of allegations levelled by the respondent delinquent in his appeal from para 3(i) to and finally holding the appeal having no merit and the punishment being commensurate to the charges levelled against him confirmed the punishment of dismissal the High Court of Allahabad filed at the instance of the 12. The learned Single Judge of the High Court although has passed a detailed judgment but the focus was throughout on charge no.1 which was not found to be proved by the enquiry officer in his report but the disciplinary authority recorded its by the Division Bench of the High Court by its impugned judgment dated 13th September 2018 which is the subject 13. During the course of arguments it was brought to our for offences under Sections 420 467 468 471 IPC read with Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 the respondent employee was CBI Court No. 1 Lucknow by a judgment dated 31st May 2019 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that fair in the course of enquiry and it was never the case of the respondent that either the procedure prescribed under the by the authority who was not competent under law or the are not supported by the evidence on record or there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. In the absence whereof the plea raised by the respondent holding that the 15. To the contrary the Enquiry Officer in his detailed report expressing its prima facie opinion and after the copy of the enquiry report along with the tentative view of the disciplinary reply into consideration has dealt with so called alleged objections raised confirmed its tentative view expressed in upholding penalty of dismissal from service after assigning reasons supported by the documents on record. In the given is concerned it is true that the enquiry officer has not found its reasons for disagreement while expressing a prima facie employee no justification was tendered by the delinquent respondent in his written reply to the note of disagreement recorded by the disciplinary authority. Thus a fair opportunity was afforded to him and taking assistance of the Constitution this Court in P.D. Agrawal Vs. State Bank of India and 2 learned counsel submitted that the order of dismissal the enquiry officer and confirmed by the disciplinary appellate authority holds the respondent delinquent guilty of grave delinquency in upholding the penalty of dismissal and delinquent by the High Court was not justified and needs 17. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent while his report and failed to examine the record of enquiry independently and rejected the written objections raised by the from service by passing a non­speaking order without due 18. Learned counsel further submits that when the enquiry officer has not found charge no. 1 proved and the disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in his report should have served in the first place a note respondent guilty in reference to Charge no. 1 was not only a procedural error but is a great prejudice being caused to the respondent and such defect could not have been cured by the post­decisional hearing which has been rightly upheld by the 20. At the outset it may be noted that the enquiry officer has noticed in his enquiry report that the respondent delinquent a representative of his choice. He further stated during the the presenting officer. Taking note of the record of enquiry respondent employee the enquiry officer examined each of the charge nos. 1 to 7 and after detailed analysis recorded his 21. The disciplinary authority after the report of enquiry was enquiry including charge­sheet reply to the charge­sheet enquiry proceedings findings of the enquiry officer dated 22nd May 1999 brief of the presenting officer brief of the defence and further noticing 28 documents which were exhibited PEX­1 to PEX­28 relied by the presenting officer and employee after due application of mind recorded its finding in no. 1 holding to be proved. The detailed reasons assigned in Placed before me are the submissions show cause notice dated the 15th July 1999 of Shri A.K. Srivastava Cashier­cum­Clerk under suspension presently posted at dismiss him without notice for his gross misconduct relating to the fraudulent transactions perpetrated at also decided that the period spent by Shri Srivastava as suspended will be treated as such and no salary and allowance except the subsistence allowance already paid him on the charges contained in the charge­sheet dated 11.4.1996 and he was given an opportunity to make submissions if any against the above punishment within 7 days of its receipt extended to 15 days on his request failing which it would be deemed that he has nothing to 2. Shri A.K. Srivastava has submitted that it is highly without seeking his comments thereon. In his view the him for seeking his submissions if any which has not been to forward the enquiry report to the charged employees before finalization of the proposed punishment. The procedure in this regard has been followed by enquiry imposed on him as per the system and procedure in the the same day on the conclusion of the day’s proceedings receipt of the prosecution brief. Likewise the Enquiry Officer has already clarified on the points raised by Shri Srivastava in his letter dated 10.11.1998 which has been 4. The other points raised by Shri Srivastava in his submission dated 15.7.1999 sent to the Disciplinary Srivastava neither asked any document not desired to produce any witnesses defence evidence during the enquiry proceeding till its conclusion on 12.5.1998 However when he left that the prosecution has produced enough evidences as per enquiry proceedings which will prove his involvement in the conspiracy to defraud the bank he started levelling the baseless allegations against 5. I have perused all the relevant documents again and 15.12.1998 and do not find any substance for re­ opening the enquiry as Shri Srivastava had already been punishment is commensurate to the charges levelled and I therefore confirm my tentative order dated 29.6.1999 to of the Desai Award as modified by the 12th Bipartite Settlement dated 14.2.1995 made between State Bank of also order that the period spent by Shri Srivastava as suspended be treated as such and no salary and allowances except the subsistence allowance already paid 22. The departmental appeal which was preferred by the by the appellate authority in its order dated 15th November 1999 “3. In order to examine the aforesaid points by the appellant I have gone through the charge­sheets reply of proceedings findings of the Enquiry Officer tentative order dated the 29th June 1999 final order dated the 24th July 1999 his service sheet and other relevant records of the i) Almost all points raised by Shri Srivastava as July 1999. The clarification given are quite The charges contained in the charge­sheet were not vague as alleged by him and all the charges ii) The contention of Shri Srivastava that the Officer who has been appointed by him for fact Supreme Court has given several judgments in iv) The Disciplinary Authority reviews the pending suspension cases and can order reinstatement of any suspended employee after the charges against them were not serious v) The charges of double standards and discriminatory treatment are not correct as disciplinary proceedings have been initiated Supplementary charge­sheets have already been served on some of the employees against whom penalties have been imposed on the basis of vi) The payment of suspension period has not been made in terms of their service rules to any charge­sheeted employee and none has been vii) The appellant has already accepted that he prepared to take vouchers without any real cash transfer transaction for regularizing his overdrawn current account and deposit of none had promised him penalty short of viii) Non­reply of his letters representations meant for delay in the domestic enquiry and resultant punishment cannot be treated as violation of natural justice. The enquiry started while other charged employees opted for defence any representative to defend his case in view of serious charges against him. He neither asked any document nor desired to produce any witness defence evidence during the enquiry proceedings till its conclusion on 12.5.1998 When he felt that the prosecution has produced enough evidences as per enquiry proceedings to defraud the bank he started levelling the 4. Thus the points raised by Sri Srivastava in his appeal preceding paragraphs. After careful consideration of the Authority is fully justified in awarding the punishment of dismissal without notice and treating the period spent by salary and allowances except the subsistence allowance already paid to him. I therefore hold the order of the 23. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries exercised by the departmental appellate authorities “13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts Where appeal is presented the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the It is thus settled that the power of judicial review of the Constitutional Courts is an evaluation of the decision­making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion the delinquent if it is in any manner inconsistent with the rules by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority whether rules of natural justice are complied with iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority on receiving the report of enquiry the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former in case of disagreement the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after departmental enquiry proceedings. However the only must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental 29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the respondent delinquent for misappropriation of public funds by relevant period. In all 7 charges were levelled against him of grave misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his respondent delinquent and due compliance of the principles of the preliminary objections raised by the respondent delinquent 22 pages along with documents produced by the presenting officer marked as PEX­1 to PEX­28 to establish the allegations charges levelled against the respondent delinquent of enquiry that he neither wants to say anything about the presenting officer and never requested to seek permission to documentary evidence produced by the presenting officer in not proved and charges nos. 2­7 stood proved against the prima facie opinion called upon the respondent to submit his explanation and after affording an opportunity of hearing and dealing with the objections raised by the respondent in his written reply expressed its brief reasons while upholding the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in his report and confirmed its opinion of inflicting penalty of dismissal from also later revisited on the appeal being preferred and after 33. The submission which persuaded the High Court in the impugned judgment is basically for two reasons. Firstly before the finding of disagreement being recorded by the disciplinary was not afforded to the respondent delinquent and that has caused prejudice to him. Secondly the disciplinary authority appellate authority has not examined the record of disciplinary enquiry independently and passed a non­speaking order without due application of mind and this what prevailed 34. The submission which was made in regard to the note of to Charge no. 1 is concerned this Court do find substance to hold that the disciplinary authority on receiving the report of the first place before recording his finding of guilt and is severable from the other charges(Charge nos. 2­7) levelled Officer and the finding of fact was confirmed by the disciplinary appellate authority after meeting out objections the order of dismissal illegal but on the finding of guilt being recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report in reference to charges nos.2­7 and confirmed by the disciplinary appellate authority was not liable to be interfered and those findings established the guilt of grave delinquency which in our view was an apparent error being committed by the High Court while interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal inflicted upon this Court in State of Orissa and Others Vs. Bidyabhushan “9. The High Court has held that there was evidence to acquitted by the Tribunal and it did not fall to be 1(e) in the view of the High Court “the rules of natural Tribunal was undoubtedly founded on its findings on Charges 1(a) 1(e) 1(c) 1(d) and Chargecould not be sustained because in Government of the State of Orissa should decide whether would suffice”. It is not necessary for us to consider whether the High Court was right in holding that the findings of the Tribunal on Charges 1(a) and 1(e) were the order of the High Court directing the Government to we will presently set out be sustained. If the order of order of dismissal illegal but when the findings of the Tribunal relating to the two out of five heads of the first charge and the second charge was found not liable to be interfered with by the High Court and those findings established that the respondent was prima facie guilty of “..It was urged that the Court should not have assumed that the General Manager would have inflicted the charge and consequently the punishment should not be in State of the decision Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatrawhere it was said that if an order in an enquiry under be given it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment in question. In our view that Although the enquiry officer found in fact that the 39. Yet again in Sawarn Singh and Another Vs. State of 19. In view of this the deficiency or reference to some irrelevant matters in the order of the Commissioner had proposition that where the order of a domestic tribunal makes reference to several grounds some relevant and existent and others irrelevant and non­existent the order and existing grounds and the exclusion of irrelevant or State of the charges which have been proved justify imposition of penalty 41. So far as the submission which has prevailed upon the High of mind in our considered view is not factually supported by the In the case on hand the disciplinary appellate authority order dated 24th July 1999 the disciplinary authority had taken note of the record of enquiry including self­contained enquiry report dated 22nd May 1999 and his prima facie opinion dated 29th June 1999 which was made available to the respondent employee and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing penalty of dismissal by its order dated 24th July 1999. That finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer in his report dismissing the respondent employee from service rejected by order dated 15th November 1999. After detailed discussion we are unable to accept the finding recorded by the High Court the disciplinary appellate authority which deserves to be set 43. Before we conclude we need to emphasize that in banking business absolute devotion integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires the employee to has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent dated 24th July 1999 confirmed in 44. Consequently the appeals deserve to succeed and are accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court impugned dated 13th September 2018 is hereby set aside. No 45. Pending application(s) if any stand disposed of

Summary: Upholding the dismissal of a Bank clerk, Supreme Court observed that it is every Bank employees’ duty to work with devotion and integrity and honesty in the Banking Business. This was held in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava [SLP(C) No(s). 32067­32068 of 2018] presided over by the bench of Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Ajay Rastogi. In the above cited case, in 1999, Ajay Kumar Srivastava, was found guilty of charges of misappropriation of funds and was dismissed after holding the disciplinary enquiry. He had filed a departmental appeal, which was also dismissed by the authorities. When the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the HC, Allahabad High Court rejected the dismissal of the respondent by giving two reasons. When the appeal was filed in Supreme Court, it was being observed that the Charge no. 1 in reference to which the finding recorded by the enquiry officer had been overturned, the charges were proved by the enquiry officer against the employee and the finding of fact was confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority after meeting out objections raised by the respondent delinquent at different stages. In the judgment itself, SC contended about the power of judicial review in matters of disciplinary proceedings and was decided that the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. SC explained that what should be done in the cases when departmental enquiry is held against any public servant. SC observed the Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution should not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity and if there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same needs to be sustained. It was stated that in these type of cases, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the public servant must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person may arrive at the upholding of the charge.