Dhara Singh v. Union Bank of India & Anr.

16. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he went to the customer’s house at the given address but found that the customer was not residing at the given address. So, he could not handover the money to the customer. He kept the amount with him for the time being as suggested by his senior officer for passing on the money to the customer when he comes back to the branch for money.

17. It is submitted that when the account of the customer was made operative subsequently, the said amount was credited to his account. It is contended that when the money had already been credited in the account of the customer and the whole issue was over, the Assistant General Manager reported the matter to the General Manager. It is submitted that there was no misappropriation by the petitioner and the money had been deposited in the account of the petitioner.

18. It is submitted that even the customer in question, i.e., Sh. Parvinder Singh deposed in favour of the petitioner. He submitted that the amount was credited to his account and that he had no grievance against the petitioner as there was no misappropriation of his funds.

19. It is contended that the present is a case of no evidence against the petitioner. Thus, in case of no evidence against the delinquent employee, the inquiry officer cannot hold the employee guilty. It is prayed that the order dated 22.11.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and order 22.04.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority being perverse, may be set aside.

20. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

1. BSM (PG) College Vs. Samrat Sharma, (2019) 16 SCC 56

2. Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC

3. Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India, (2002) 7 SCC

4. Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors,.

21. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent it is submitted that on 01.05.2007, when the complaint was made by the customer, the petitioner accepted that he had retained the amount with him. On that very date, the petitioner prepared a voucher and transferred the amount of Rs. 5000/- in the Sundry account maintained by the bank. Subsequently, the account of the customer was made operative on 05.05.2007 and thereafter the amount was transferred to the account of the customer on the said date.

22. It is submitted that the amount of cash deposited by the customer was not accounted for in the books of accounts, and was retained by the petitioner for a period of 20 days. It is contended that the punishment of compulsory retirement, as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority, was rightly imposed upon the petitioner. All the dues of the petitioner pursuant to compulsory retirement stand paid. The petitioner has also reached the age of superannuation in the year 2014.

23. It is submitted that the inquiry was held in a just and fair manner and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the bank has lost confidence in the petitioner as he had retained the amount of the customer for a period of 20 days and had returned the same only after a complaint was made by the customer. The bank cannot repose any confidence in such an officer/workman who retains the amount of the customer of the bank.

24. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments.

I. Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.,

II. PTI Employees Union Federation of PTI Employees

Union Vs. Press Trust of India Ltd., 273 (2020) DLT

III. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand

IV. BC Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others,

25. I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the records.

26. The facts on record clearly show that the petitioner was working as a clerk and was performing his duties at the cash window on the material date, i.e., 10.04.2007. One customer by the name of Parvinder Singh had come to the bank to deposit Rs. 5,000/- in his Savings Account. The petitioner accepted the said amount and issued the receipt/acknowledgement to the customer. The petitioner did not credit the said amount in the account of the customer on the ground that it was found that the said account was dormant/inoperative. Thus, the petitioner kept the said amount with himself. However, the petitioner did not account for the said amount in the books of accounts of the bank.

27. When approximately after about 20 days on 01.05.2007, the customer visited the branch, upon the Branch Manager making inquiries, the fact of the amount having been retained by the petitioner came to light. The facts on record clearly exhibit that the petitioner did not take any steps for either accounting for the said amount, nor made any relevant entries in the books of accounts of the bank. No doubt that the account of the customer was inoperative/ dormant at the material time, however, the petitioner while performing his duties at the cash window was required to make the relevant entries in the accounts at the time of receiving the cash. The petitioner while performing his duties at the cash window in a bank was required to check the account in the system and make entries therein at the time of accepting the cash at the cash window. The petitioner could not have simply kept the cash with him without making the requisite entries in the account at the time of acceptance of the cash.

28. It was only when the customer produced the counter foil that it came to light that the petitioner herein had received the said cash amount without crediting the same in the account of the customer. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had accounted for the said money. Rather, it has come on record that the petitioner had kept the said amount in his own custody. The petitioner could not have retained the money of the customer with himself without accounting for the same or bringing the same to the notice of the Branch Manager. The events were discovered by the Branch Manager only when the customer in question visited the bank subsequently after 20 days.

29. Where a person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions, then misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands, as held by Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah and Others Vs. Hoti Lal & Another, (2003) 3 SCC 605. Thus, it has been held as follows: “10.......... If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of dismissal.”

30. The act on the part of the petitioner in retaining the aforesaid amount for a period of 20 days, and not accounting the same in the books of accounts of the bank is a gross misconduct. It has come to the fore that it was only when the customer approached the bank subsequently that the petitioner admitted to the amount deposited by the customer, being in his custody. It was only thereafter that the petitioner deposited the said amount in the “Sundry Creditors” Account by preparing a Savings Bank Challan for the inoperative Savings Bank Account of the customer. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner had received the cash and had mis-utilized the same without accounting for the same. Thus, the aforesaid action of the petitioner constituted gross misconduct and was prejudicial to the interest of the bank. It was a serious lapse and an irregularity committed by the petitioner.

31. Departmental proceedings were conducted and the charges against the petitioner herein were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. The documents on record clearly show that the petitioner was granted every opportunity to defend himself during the course of enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings were held in a just and fair manner and in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice.

32. The whole concept of banking is based upon trust of the customers. The bank receives the deposits from its customers, which are to be duly accounted for in the accounts of the respective customers. In dealing with the cash amounts of the customers, a strict policy of zero tolerance has to be followed in order to ensure that the moneys of the customers are secured and are not siphoned off in any manner. Thus, the petitioner being a Cashier with the bank and dealing with large amounts of cash and conducting money dealings of the customers, was required to maintain absolute integrity and uprightness in discharge of his duties. No laxity in this regard can be tolerated or condoned.

33. Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 has held in categorical terms that in banking business, absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. Thus, it held as follows:

34. The mere fact that the customer in question had deposed that since the money had been credited to his account and that he had no grievance against anyone, does not in any manner exonerate the petitioner from the misconduct committed by him. It was the responsibility of the petitioner to immediately bring to the notice of the Branch Head/his superior officers the fact with respect to the amount having been received by him, which could not be credited for the reason of the account being inoperative/ dormant.

35. Supreme Court has emphasized time and again that a bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity, as he deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Thus, in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C. Kakkar, reported as (2003) 4 SCC 364, Supreme Court has held as follows:

36. The defence on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner lacked proper knowledge about the banking and computer environment, was rightly rejected by the Enquiry Officer. As held by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner having so many years of experience, cannot take shelter under such a plea. The Enquiry Officer has categorically held that it was the responsibility of the petitioner, being the Cashier to adhere to the laid down procedures and system. The Enquiry Officer has further held that if the petitioner had any difficulty, then the petitioner ought to have sought the assistance of other colleagues at the branch, instead of keeping the cash with him. The petitioner ought to have reported to the Branch Manager, so that the amount in question could be accounted for.

37. Once the enquiry has been held properly and Principles of Natural Justice have been followed, then this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the departmental authorities. Thus, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others, (2020) 9 SCC 471 has held as follows:

27. These parameters have been consistently reiterated by this Court in a catena of decisions, including:

(i) State of T.N. v. S. Subramaniam [State of T.N. v. S.

Subramaniam, (1996) 7 SCC 509: 1996 SCC (L&S) 627].

(ii) Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank [Lalit Popli v. Canara

Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583: 2003 SCC (L&S) 353].

(iii) H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh

28. It is thus well settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority.”

38. There is another aspect of the matter. Pursuant to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the bank lost confidence in the petitioner inasmuch as he had retained the amount of the customer for a period of 20 days and had returned the same only when the customer approached the bank subsequently. Though the petitioner contended that there was no malafide on his part and that he never intended to retain the amount, however, the fact remains that the amount was retained by him.

39. Thus, Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 has held that if the enquiry has been conducted fairly and properly and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of evidence will not be a ground for interfering with the findings of the departmental enquiries. Further, it has been held that in dealing with cases of termination of bank employees, the loss of confidence by the bank in the employee, will be an important and relevant factor. Thus, it has been held as follows:

40. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, the present writ petition is found without any merits. Accordingly the same is dismissed.

JUDGE MAY 8, 2023