DILIP SAGAR Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.9.1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority-Deputy General Manager, and also the order of appellate authority dated 6.12.1997 passed by the General Manager confirming the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) The petitioner was serving as a Clerk in Syndicate Bank, Vina Branch, Nadiad. He was originally appointed as Peon on 21.10.75 in Syndicate Bank, Paldi Branch. Thereafter he had appeared in the examination for the post of Clerk in which he had succeeded. In pursuance of the same he was appointed as a clerk on 21.2.1984 in Desaj, Branch. There after he was transferred to Ashram Road branch of the respondent Bank on 10.6.1989. 2.1 The petitioner has been maintaining his S.B. Accounts being (i) A-29 and (ii) 8264 at the Ashram Road Branch of the respondent Bank. During the period between 19.2.1994 and 21.2.1994 the petitioner caused crediting of Rs.31,818 to his said accounts a sum of Rs.31,818.03 being the proceeds of certain clearing instruments. Thereafter, during the period between 19.2.1994 and 2.3.1994, the petitioner has withdrawn Rs.1000/- on 19.2.1994, Rs.9000/- on 2.3.1994, Rs.16500/- on 29.2.1994 and Rs. 11000/- on 2.3.1994 from his aforesaid accounts. 2.2 During January 1995 the Ashram Road Branch of the respondent bank received a complaint from one Ms Madhu Jain of New Delhi, alleging that Dividend warrant No.003911 issued in her name by M/s Vinyl Chemicals (India) Ltd., Bombay was encashed by another person through Ashram Road Branch, Ahmedabad and demanded refund of the said amount. Therefore, the respondent bank remitted Rs.150/- to Ms Madhu Jain by debiting "DW wrongly collected Account". 2.3 On 15.6.1995, observing certain clearing credits made into the SB accounts of the petitioner, the respondent Bank requested the petitioner- to furnish full particulars of the same. The petitioner, by letter dated 19.6.1995, submitted details of 207 divident/interest warrants/refund orders purportedly issued by 9 Public Limited Companies in favour of various persons, the accounts of which were credited to the petitioner's SB Accounts. In the said letter the petitioner has also confirmed that dividend warrant No.003911 issued by M/s Vinyl Chemicals. (India) Ltd., for Rs.150/- is also one of the instruments, the proceeds of which were credited to the SB account of the petitioner. On 23.6.1995 the petitioner remitted Rs.l0200/- for credit of his SB Account No. A-29 and Rs.21,200/- for credit of his SB account No. 8264 maintained at the said branch. 2.4 On 24.6.1994 the respondent bank debited Rs.10,129.98 to the SB Account No.A- 29 and Rs.21,188.05 to the SB Account No. 8264 of the petitioner and credited the same to the suspense account to meet the claims from the payees of the respective interest/dividend warrants/refund orders, the amounts of which were got credited to the SB account of the petitioner. 2.5 In July 1995, the Ashram Road Branch of the petitioner received another-complaint from one Ms Vanita R. Ghetia of Upleta, Rajkot, alleging that the refund order Mo.574999 issued by M/s Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd., for Rs.1000/- was encashed at the branch and has demanded refund of the said amount. On verification it was revealed that the said instrument was also got, credited to the SB account of the petitioner. 2.6 It was further revealed that the S.B. ledger sheet pertaining to his S.B. Account No.A-29 for the period from 25.11.1993 and 1.9.1994 was found missing from the branch records and therefore, the respondent Bank had to reconstruct the same with the help of other relevant records. During this period, an amount of Rs.10,129.98 was credited to the SB account of the petitioner being the proceeds of certain interest/ dividend warrants/refund orders issued in favour of certain third parties. 2.7 On further investigation it was found that though the interest/divident warrants/ refund orders mentioned by the petitioner in his letter dated 19.6.1995 said to be issued by 9 companies in favour of others residing in various places were crossed "A/c Payee" and "not negotiable", the petitioner managed to get collected the proceeds thereof for credit of his account by resorting to fraudulent means. The bank has therefore, come to the conclusion that since the petitioner was neither the payee nor the relevant instruments would have been endorsed in his favour because of their restrictive crossings, he has committed an offence of "conversion" of the monies belonging to some one else. Under the circumstances the bank alleged that the petitioner has committed an act of "gross misconduct" within the meaning of clause No. 19.5 of Bipartite Settlement. 2.8 In view of the above, a chargesheet was Issued to the petitioner on 12.10.1995. Along with the petitioner two other officers of the bank were also chargesheeted for the alleged misconduct. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said chargesheet denying all the allegations. However, since the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, a departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner. The petitioner was given the opportunity of examining the witnesses and cross-examining the management witnesses, the petitioner was also provided the defence representative Shri S.K., Karkara on behalf of the management who is an employee of the Bank. 2.9 The Inquiry Officer, after inquiry, submitted his report on 16.10.1996 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved beyond reasonable doubt., The petitioner submitted his written submissions against the findings of the Inquiry Officer on 16.12.1996. Thereafter,, after hearing the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 26.9.1997 dismissing the petitioner from the services of the bank with immediate effect. 2.10 Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. General Manager (P), Head Office, Manipal. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 6th December 1997 dismissed the said appeal. It is against the aforesaid orders the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Ms Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner-submitted that the petitioner has been falsely roped in the alleged misconduct. According to the petitioner, the 207 instruments were credited by one Shri Jagdish Modi without the knowledge of the petitioner in his Savings Bank Account. She submitted that merely because the ledger sheet of account No. A/29 of the relevant period could not be found, it cannot be said that the petitioner has tried to destroy any of the records of Account No. A/ 29 as alleged. 3.2 Learned counsel further submitted that one Mr. M.R. Shah, another employee of the bank had cleared the instruments even though they were A/c Payee in collusion with one Jagdish Modi. She has also pointed out that in similar cases only minor punishment of stoppage of increments was imposed and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is very harsh. 3.3 She further submitted that during the 22 years of service there was no adverse remark against the petitioner and therefore the punishment of dismissal from service could not have been imposed upon the petitioner.