TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al justice. Therefore, the order was set aside. The High Court directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent though for the limited purpose of holding the inquiry afresh. HELD THAT:- There was a clear documentary evidence on record in the handwriting of the respondent which established his role in the withdrawal of huge amounts for fictitious persons. The ledger entries clearly showed that whereas the FDRs were in one name, the withdrawals were shown in the name of altogether different persons and they were far in excess over the amounts of FDRs. The respondent had no explanation and, therefore, it had to be held that the respondent had misappropriated the amount. Inspite of a well reasoned order by the Inquiry Officer, the High Court has interfered therein by calling the same as sketchy. The High Court has completely overlooked the role of the bank manager as expected by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. In these facts and circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The petition filed by the respondent in the High Court will stand dismissed. Consequently, contempt procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter, although a telegram was sent to him on 11th March, 1999 that he should join immediately. He was, therefore, suspended on 12th March, 1999. An FIR was lodged on 13th March, 1999 and the respondent was arrested along with the Cashier Mr. K.P. Singh. 4. The appellant Bank issued a charge-sheet to the respondent containing the following charges: (i) He sanctioned demand loan against twenty non-existent FDR's amounting ₹ 16.48 Lac to the fictitious persons. Thus he has misappropriated ₹ 16.48 lac by way of sanctioning demand loans against non-existent FDRs without any security. (ii) He has left the Branch on 9th March, 1999 without handing over the charge of articles and documents of Branch. (iii) He has left his station of posting without authorization, and he is absconding from the services since 09.03.1999. (iv) He stands a guarantor to the loan sanctioned to M/s Mark Tubes, at Branch office Gurgaon. The loan was sanctioned against his surety for which he has not obtained prior permission from the competent authority. The account turned into NPA account and he has not made sincere efforts to ensure the recovery of this loan amount, and (v) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The inquiry officer has dealt with this material on record in the following words in his report: Presenting officer relied on MEX A 1-20 MEX BI to 10; MEX C 1 to 20, MEX F 1 to 20 and MEX G-1 to 20. These are the documents showing all the entries by CSO in his own handwriting. The presenting officer also brought in MW1 to prove payments made to CSO by MW1 through Exhibits marked MEX C 1 to C4; MEX C-6 to C-7; MEX C-11 to C-20. Through exhibits MEX B1 to B10 presented that there were no records through which FDRs kept as security could be proved. P.O. in his plea brought in MEX E-1 to MEX E-3 to show that FDRs against which the loan were raised too did not belong to borrower and one was paid to the beneficiary on 11.07.96. P.O. argued advance was made were non-existent. 7. Although, the respondent participated in the inquiry and filed his reply therein as well as a detailed counter in this Court, there is no explanation whatsoever as to how these 20 persons were given the loans when the FDRs were not in their names and also why the loan amount is far exceeding the amount that was deposited. The only submission of the respondent was that when earlier inspections were carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only defence of the respondent was that there was no harm to the bank in this, and if necessary the amount be adjusted from his retirement benefit or otherwise after reinstatement by regular installments. This was no explanation and this was against the service rules and hence the inquiry officer held that the charges were proved. 11. After considering the inquiry report, the Zonal Manager who was the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the respondent has committed misconduct under Clause 3(1) and 15(v) read with Regulation No. 24 of the Punjab Sind Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1981. He concurred with the findings of the inquiry officer. Therefore, by the order dated 6th June, 2003, he imposed the penalty of dismissal from service alongwith recovery of pecuniary loss under 'Punjab and Sind Bank officer/employees (Discipline and appeal) Regulation 1997. That order has been subsequently confirmed in the internal appeal and in review. 12. As stated above, all these three orders were challenged in the above writ petition in the High Court, and have come to be set aside. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the report submitted ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcess. The respondent had not disputed those entries. The inquiry officer has, therefore, given the necessary finding and the High Court has clearly erred in holding that no specific finding had been recorded on the basis of the evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent. Mr. Nanda has also stated that once the charges were established, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision of the Bank authority and he relied upon the judgments of this Court in Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce AIR 2007 SC 199, State Bank of India v. Bela Bagchi (2005) 7 SCC 435 and Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain (2005) 10 SCC 84. 15. The respondent who appeared in person reiterated his submissions which were made during the inquiry. He submitted that he had improved business at the extension counter to make it a branch, that he was being made a victim and that the documents did not establish the misconduct. On a query from the Court he could not dispute that the relevant entries were in his hand-writing. With a view to satisfy ourselves, we asked him as to what was his explanation with respect to those entries. He had no particular answer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs of the Inquiry Officer were perverse. A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at. This has been held by this Court long back in Triveni Rubber Plastics v. CCE AIR 1994 SC 1341. Unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration the finding cannot be said to be perverse. The legal position in this behalf has been recently reiterated in Arulvelu and Anr. v. State Represented by the Public Prosecutor and Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 206. The decision of the High Court cannot therefore be sustained. 18. As held in T.N. C.S. Corporation Ltd. v. K. Meerabai (2006) 2 SCC 255 the scope of judicial review for the High Court in departmental disciplinary matter is limited. The observation of this Court in Bank of India v. Degala Sriramulu (1999) 5 SCC 768 are quite instructive: Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
