SURESH PATHRELLA Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition judicial review is prayed for in respect of the punishment inflicted on the Petitioner, viz.- "Removal from Bank service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment". The case against the Petitioner is that while he was Incumbent- incharge at the Branch Office Gurgaon, he had misappropriated an amount of Rs.10 lacs of a customer, namely, Shri G.C. Luthra without his authority/consent with a view to give wrongful gains to the unconnected parties. By these acts the Petitioner allegedly failed to discharge his duties with integrity, devotion, diligence and failed to protect the interests of the Bank.

(2.) Prior to commencing Departmental proceedings against the Petitioner, the Respondent-Bank had called for the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The first stage advice appears to have been against the Petitioner. Thereafter, the following opinion had been given - "From a perusal of the case it is clear that the main allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 10 lacs is unfounded and the amount actually went to the account of the Bank to be set off against overdrafts of the three firms. The main allegation - misappropriation of Rs.10 lacs is the crux in both Departmental proceedings and the criminal case. The Gurgaon police after investigation has closed the case as unfounded before the CJM. Gurgaon, therefore nothing substantial remains in this matter for proceeding against Shri Pathrella. Accordingly the argument of the Bank that Departmental proceedings and criminal case are different does not hold good and his removal from service was incorrect."

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the Respondent is that this was unsolicited advice, a copy of which had not been furnished to the Respondent-Bank. It is relevant to note that second stage advice had not been asked for by the Respondent-Bank. After an adjournment had been requested for, and granted by the Court, in order to enable the Bank to reconsider its decision. An Additional Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-Bank, without the leave of the Court. It states as follows: That from the sequence of the events as emerged from the file of the CVC and other relevant records, it is apparent that the CVC acts only as an advisory body and it is for the departmental authorities to decide as to what action is to be taken against the delinquent official. 8.That in the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had opened an account in the name of Shri Luthra without getting his account opening form or the required signatures, etc. and thereafter credited a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in the said account which was subsequently transferred to other accounts without the authorisation of the concerned party. The misconduct of the petitioner may not be a criminal act but at the same time it was definitely against the banking norms and therefore the bank was fully justified in taking disciplinary action against him."