A.S. Naidu, J.@mdashThe Petitioner was working as an Assistant Manager in UCO Bank. Sahid Nagar Branch. Bhubaneswar which is one of the Nationalized Bank of India having nationwide network.On scrutiny It was found that during his incumbency between October. 1982 to March. 1988 he had indulged in several acts of omission & commission (sic) misutilized his power & post which was unbecoming of a Bank Officer. On Coming to know about the said irregularities in the interest of customers & the Bank it was decided to initiate a Disciplinary Proceeding & following charges were framed :
i) On 20.4.1987, Shri Kushal Chatterjee fraudulently debited interest paid (FOR) account by an amount of Rs. 1,100 & credited Rs. 800 to the S.B A/c of one Mr. J.K. Chakraborty whereas no FOR existed in the name of Mr. J.K. Chakraborty during the relevant period. He also wrongfully credited the rest Rs. 300 to RD Account No. 120/127 in the name of Mrs. Chhabi Chakraborty.
ii) On 15.9.1987 while prematurely closing R.D A/c No. 24/SB of one Mr. Surendra Kumar Panda. Sri Kushal Chatterjee fraudulently debited interest accrued & payable (RD) Account by an excess amount of Rs. 500 which he diverted to. RD account No. 120/127 one Mrs. Chhabi Chakraborty.
iii) On 17.3.1987 & 23.3.1987 Sri Kushal Chatterjee unauthorizedly transferred Rs. 400 & Rs. 200 respectively aggregating to Rs. 600 to his S.B A/c No. 1305 from the S.B A/c No. 4040 of one Mr. J.K. Chakraborty. This Rs. 600 was credited back to S.B A/c No. 4040 by fraudulently debiting interest accrued & payable (FOR) Account on 26.3.1987.
iv) On 03.10.1986 Sri Kushal Chattejee fraudulently debited BRB A/c of the branch by an amount of Rs. 1.000 & transferred the amount to his SB A/c No. 1305. On 16.10.1986 Sri Kushal Chatterjee unauthorisedly debited SB A/c No. 4434 of one Mr. S. Chakraborty by Rs. 1,500 & utilized Rs. 1.000 to square up the fraudulent BRB A/c debited dated 03.10.1986 & transferred the balance Rs. 500 to his SB A/c No. 1305.
v) Sri Kushal Chatterjee wrongfully availed himself or reimbursement of medical expenses on 10.1.1983 & again on 14.2.1984 for the year 1983 though he knew fully well that he had already been reimbursed medical expenses for the same year on 05.1.1983 as per his entitlement. Similarly Sri K. Chatterjee availed himself of a facility of medical reimbursement for the year 1987 on 14.2.1987 though he himself had already availed full medical reimbursement for the same year as per his entitlement on 20.1.1987. While on 20.1.1987 the amount of Rs. 600 was credited by him to his SB A/c No. 3873 on 14.2.1987 he credited another Rs. 600 to SB A/c No. 1305 jointly by him with his wife.
vi) Sri Kushal Chatterjee in order to meet the margin money requirement for his consumer loan disbursed to him on 02.12.1986 had wrongfully debited Rs. 2,556 to the S.B Ac No. 4040 one Sri J.K. Chakraborty without any authority. Manager''s cheque for Rs. 12,556 issued to the Supplier M/s EMCEE Square Instruments was deposited to their Current Account on 03.12.1986. Subsequently Sri Chatterjee received back the amount from the Suppliers in two instalments through cheques for Rs. 7,500 & Rs. 5,050. On the day of the receipt of the first instalment of Rs. 7,500 from the Suppliers, Sri Chatterjee credited back Rs. 2.556 to S.B A/c No. 4040 from which he had unauthorisedly raised the margin money. Thus besides temporarily misappropriating a sum of Rs. 2,556 from a customer''s account. Sri Chatterjee misutilised the consumer loan sanctioned to him by arranging to get back the amount of the said loan from the suppliers. Perusal of the specimen signature cards of the EMCEE Service Instruments & SB A/c No. 4040 revealed the following :
The signature of the Proprietor of M/s EMCEE Square Instruments was verified by Sri Kushal Chattejee & also the SB A/c No. 4040 was introduced by him. The address of both the account holders are also the same viz. Plot No. 257, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar.
vii) Sri Kushal Chatterjee on various dates unauthorisedly transferred diverse amount from accounts of different customers to his Savings Bank Account No. 3873 & also to S.B A/c No. 1305 held by him jointly with his wife. Sri Kushal Chatterjee thus misappropriated various amounts from the accounts of customers exposing the bank to financial risk. Sri Chatterjee on various occasions transferred different amounts from S.B A/c''s of certain customers to the accounts of other customers without any authority, thereby exposing the bank to financial risk.
2. After receiving the charges, it is alleged, the Petitioner requested the Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Sahidnagar Branch to supply 17 Nos. of documents. It is alleged that for the reasons best known no document was supplied to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence. On 08.1.1998 the Enquiry Officer & Presenting Officer were appointed by the Disciplinary Authority in consonance with Regulation 6(2) & (6) of the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''Regulation, 1976) to enquire into the charges. The Enquiry Officer commenced the enquiry & after vivid discussion of the materials available on record & relying upon about 45 documents which were exhibited & marked as Management Exbts.1 to 45 as well as the oral evidence, submitted his report on 12.8.1999 with an observation that Charge Nos. 1 to 7 have been proved against the Petitioner. A copy of the enquiry report was duly supplied to the Petitioner & after observing all paraphernalia''s & considering the materials available on record in proper perspective the Disciplinary Authority by his Order Dated 08.10.1999 (Annexure-5) in exercise of power conferred upon him under Regulation, 1976 imposed the punishment of "removal from service" apart from other punishments.
3. Being aggrieved by the punishment imposed I the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager (Operation-II), UCO Bank, Calcutta. The Appellate Authority after scrutinizing the evidence & other materials available on record, rejected the appeal by Order Dated 29.3.2000 (Annexure-7). It appears the Petitioner has preferred a Mercy Petition before the Executive Director, UCO Bank - Opp. Party No. 1 but then no orders having been passed thereon he has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the order of punishment as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner apart from other points mainly concentrated on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority did not follow the principles of natural justice & equity inasmuch as though the Petitioner sought for 17 Nos. of documents which were very much relevant, none of the documents were made available to him. Consequently (sic) could not file a full-fledged written statement of defence. It is further alleged that in course of hearing through the defence Counsel the Petitioner also sought for copies of the said documents but then the same were not made available to him. In short according to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner due to non-supply of vital documents great prejudice was caused to the Petitioner & on that ground alone the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority should be quashed. He further submitted that in the Memorandum of Appeal, the Petitioner, had taken a specific ground with regard to non-supply of the documents sought for by the Petitioner but the Appellate Authority neither discussed nor answered the said point & dismissed the appeal by a non- discussed order.
5. After receiving notice a counter affidavit has been filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 3 taking the stand that the enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice & equity. The documents called for by the Petitioner have absolutely no nexus with the charges framed & were only meant to some how other stall the proceeding. It is further averred that concurrent finding arrived at in a domestic enquiry may not be interfered with under the jurisdiction conferred under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The Appellate Authority as well as Disciplinary Authority, it is stated have acted diligently & judiciously & have also followed the principles of natural justice & equity. The punishment imposed, it is averred, commensurate with the offence committed.
6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the pleadings as well as the documents annexed meticulously. Perusal of the written statement of defence reveals that the Petitioner more or less admitted almost all the charges. For the sake of better understanding the stand taken in the written statement of defence is quoted herein below :
i) Because due to pressure of work, I forgot to debit Rs. 500 from the S.B A/c 6031. Although I have credited the R.D A/c 120/117 for Rs. 500 & also given Rs. 500 to Sri S.K. Panda in cash. Therefore, when the Clerk could not tally the Cash Book dated 15.9.1987 & as he was also asked to complete & up-to-date Cash Book, GL & GLB immediately so he thought & presumed that the interest accrued & payable (RD) ought to be Rs. 735 & not Rs. 235 as stated in the voucher of that date. The Clerk was in a hurry to complete his allotted works & I myself too had forgotten that I had given Rs. 550 in cash to Sri S.K. Panda. On the other hand, owing to pressure of works I have had already anytime to verify the voucher of dated 15.9.1987 which ought to have verified before signing of that voucher. As the amount was small so I agreed with the concerned Clerk& destroyed the original voucher for Rs. 235 earlier prepared by me & made a fresh voucher for Rs. 735 & signed the same.
ii) Now Sir, you may ask me why this amount of Rs. 600 (Rs. 400 & Rs. 200) was being transferred from S.B A/c 4040 to S.B A/c 1305. Sir I belong to Sahidnagar area & almost all the residents/customers of Sahidnagar area are known to me. It would also not be out of place to mention that very often I used to receive money from the paying counter by signing on the back of cheques/P Ws on behalf of Dr. B.D. Samantaray, ExV.C. Utkal University, Dr. B.D. Mishra, Ex.V.C. Utkal University, Sri A.N. Rath, I.A.S. presently Election Commissioner & Sri Sarat Kumar Kar, Ex-M.P/ State Minister. I used to do this for satisfying our valued customers. In this particular case. I beg to state that at that time Sri J.K. Chakroborty was M.D of Aska Co-operative Sugar Mills & his wife was staying along at Sahid Nagar & needed money. I was requested over telephone by Sri Chakraborty to debit his S.B Account for payment to his wife & he would send authorized letters immediately. As the amount was very small so I have taken the risk. Sir, do you think that I have committed a fraud or a mistake? Barvking industry is not a monopolistic institution, here there is a fierce competition. If we only follow the letters of the manual of instructions not the spirit then our bank will slip from bad to worse as has happened now. As regards the voucher of interest accrued & payable A/c of dated 26.3.1987 for Rs. 600, I beg to inform you that I have not prepared the voucher although, I have signed it.
iii) As I was extremely busy at the counter, the said debit voucher was presented to me for signature. I do admit that I should have verified the title & contents of that debit voucher. But as the amount was small & Rs. 600 or Rs. 601 was regularly credited to S.B A/c 4040 & there was even not time to go through the voucher, I signed the same in good faith. Sir, I admit my callousness but I am sure that it was also not possible neither for the MW-1 nor for the PO nor for anybody else if he was in my position to be remain particulars & meticulous.
iv) Sir, as regards the Charge No. 4, I beg to submit the following for your kind perusal. On 03.10.1986 I have applied for a P.F Loan, on the same date I have deposited a Treasury Challan/Bill No. 053359 for Rs. 5,435 issued in favour of my wife. As per the normal procedure that Bill/challan is to be deposited to Treasury Office at Bapuji Nagar through the Bank''s peon book, my wife was in urgent need of money, so I want to send that Bill/Challan immediately on the very date of its deposit. As I was extremely busy at the counter & the peon was about to leave for clearing, I admit that I have inadvertently committed the following mistakes.
v) Sir, I am being charged that I have availed medical allowance of Rs. 1,200 in excess to my entitlement in the following manner. I have availed Rs. 300 each on 05.1.1983, 10.1.1983 & 14.2.1984 as the medical aid for 1983. Therefore, I have availed Rs. 600 in excess to my entitlement for the year 1983.
The cause shown by the Petitioner reveals that he has precisely referred to all the documents & even furnished the date & other particulars. Thus it does not appear that he was in anyway prejudiced due to non-supply of any of the documents. A close reading of the written statement of defence gives an impression that the Petitioner has projected himself to be inexperienced & ignorant about banking principles which itself indicates that he is not a fit person to continue in the bank service. Perusal of the entire records reveals that reasonable opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority & he not only submitted his written statement of defence but also took active part in the Disciplinary Proceeding. Thus at this stage he cannot turn back & take a stand that the Disciplinary Authority did not accord any opportunity to him. Further it appears that the Disciplinary Authority has conducted the enquiry as per the procedure laid down in the Regulation, 1976. He has granted sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to put forth his case. It is very much apparent that the Petitioner almost admitted his omissions & commissions as would be evident from his written statement of defence & the Disciplinary Authority taking note of such admissions as well as considering other materials on record judiciously passed the order of removal from service. The order of the Appellate Authority also reveals that the said authority properly appreciated the submission put forth before it & after going through the entire records has found that the Disciplinary Authority had not committed any error apparent on the face of the record & declined to interfere with the conclusions arrived at. After going through the same this Court also finds no infirmity "therein. Law is well settled that while adjudging the validity of an administrative order or statutory discretion normally the principles of Wednesbury test is to be applied to find out if the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural improprieties or was one which no sensible decision maker could, on the material before him & with the framework of the law have arrived at. The Court would consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account or whether the action was not bona fide. The Court would also consider whether the decision was absurd or perverse. The Court would not however, go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator amongst the various alternatives open to him. Nor could the Court substitute its decision to that of the administrator. This is the Wednesbury test. (See 1997 SC 3387 in the case of Union of India Anr. v. G. Ganayutham).
7. After going through the orders passed this Court finds that the conclusions arrived at & the punishment imposed in the Disciplinary Proceeding which was upheld by the Appellate Authority needs no interference. In the instant case the Petitioner was working as an Assistant Manager in UCO Bank. He is a responsible Officer. He was supposed to know the Rules of the Bank as well as Bank''s principles. Ignorance of the same cannot be considered as bliss. Due to such ignorance many customers are subjected to unsurmountable hardship. The allegations leveled are serious enough for the Bank to take recourse to Disciplinary Proceeding. In the written statement of defence the Petitioner has more or less admitted all the allegations & taken a plea that the said laches were due to his ignorance. After considering the gravity of the offence & as all the charges were substantially established the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment of removal from service. Interference with the said order at this juncture would amount to misplaced sympathy.
Be that as it may, fact remains, the Petitioner has filed a Mercy Petition before the Executive Director - Opp. Party No. 1 on 25.6.2000 (Annexure-8). It is alleged that the said authority has not decided the same as yet. This Court, therefore, without interfering with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority disposes of this Writ Petition with an observation that the Executive Director-Opp. Party No. 1 shall call for the records of the Disciplinary Proceeding, get the same examined & arrive at a conclusion as to whether the documents sought for by the Petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority were relevant & as to whether non-supply of the same has caused any prejudice to the Petitioner & dispose of the Mercy Petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order, if the same is still pending.
With the aforesaid observation this Writ Petition is disposed of.
B.N. Mahapatra, J.
I agree.
