SYNDICATE BANK Vs. S R PADIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge who has set aside the order of removal and the enquiry proceedings, solely on the ground of nonproduction of seven documents, which was sought for by the delinquent employee.

(2.) For the purpose of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner was functioning as Sub-Manager at the Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai, of the Respondent Syndicate Bank. The Branch was headed by an Assistant General Manager and the petitioner was working as Sub- Manager. On 21.02.1995, office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, ('DRI' for short) Mumbai, apprehended five persons carrying four gunny bags containing Indian currency. A panchnama was prepared in which it was stated that the gunny bags contained a total amount of Rs.1,00,78,000/- which was seized from the said five persons. The DRI also seized certain pay orders issued by the Bank on account of some private parties. It was alleged by the DRI that the account holders namely M/s.Acrobond Exports, M/s.Hitesh Exports, M/s.Nahalchand Laloochand, M/s.Nucleus Securities Ltd., and M/s. Wall Street Finance Limited, committed offences under the Customs Act, 1962, and the officials of the Bank abetted the same. The Bank appointed one Sri.N.R.Kamath, an officer working in Vigilance Unit of the Bank and got conducted an investigation. By a letter dated 08.08.1995, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation in the matter of certain current accounts opened at Nariman Point Branch between 31.01.1995 and 21.02.1995, on the introduction of some customers of M/s.Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited, 11 current accounts opened at Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai, during the period 03.02.1995 to 21.02.1995 on the introduction of some customers of Malabar Hills and Nariman Point Branches; and 30 current accounts opened during the period between 09.05.1994 and 03.02.1995 on the introduction of customers of local branches of the 1st Respondent Bank. Petitioner gave a reply on 08.09.1995 stating that he was functioning as a Sub-Manager of the Branch looking after administration and was not attending any frontline operations and had no contact with customers except in the matter of exchange of cut notes and complaints. He also pointed out that as a matter of routine, he was required to affix second signature on certain instruments like cheques, drafts and pay orders. The entire scrutiny and opening of the account took place at the level of Departmental Officer, who after verification of opening of the account, used to certify the correctness by signing the account opening forms and the petitioner used to put the second signature after verification as to whether the forms are filled up properly. The accounts were opened within the legal frame work of the Banking Law in the normal course of business and that no irregularity or wrong was committed nor any rule violated in that regard.