GAUTAM DHAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ appeal, the appellant seeks quashing of the judgment and order dated 7.11.2017, Annexure-5 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by him against the order dated 17.10.2013, passed by the appellate authority of the respondent-Bank imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement against him.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the writ appeal may be noticed. The appellant was appointed in the respondent-State Bank of India on 14.12.1984. He was subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant, Senior Special Assistant in the year 2008 and Assistant Manager in the year 2010. He was later on transferred to Zunheboto Branch, Nagaland w.e.f 1.5.2011 and was assigned multi task responsibilities to act as ATM-in- charge, Passing Officer as well as Cash Officer. On 23.2.2012, the Single Window Operator presented three cheques vide Account Nos.31639151625, 31729456535 and 31890329563 belonging to three account holders for withdrawal of the total amount of Rs.1,29,17,000/- to a third party i.e. Hotokhru Aye from the account of Deputy Inspector of School, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh vide SBI account No.10321911051 maintained at Swaroopnagar Branch, Kanpur. The appellant claimed that being the first Passing Officer, diligently cleared the above high value cheques in the system after verifying and ascertaining the correctness of account numbers, signatures and series of cheques and subsequently instructed the Single Window Operator to place before the Second Passing Officer. Thereafter, the appellant as the first Passing Officer and the second Passing Officer Shri Chandan Kumar had taken out the above amount and the Single Window Operator handed over the above amount to the drawee. The respondent State Bank of India appointed Investigating Officer who conducted the preliminary enquiry on 6.3.2012 at Zunheboto Branch on the allegation that the fake transaction had taken place on 23.2.2012 at Zunheboto Branch, Nagaland and Rs.1,29,17,000/- had been paid to a third party from the account of Deputy Inspector of School, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh by using the three fake cheques. He submitted the preliminary report on 17.3.2012. The appellant denied the allegation of his involvement or negligence. Thereafter, the Assistant General Manager, SBI Dimapur issued show cause notice dated 30.3.2012 to the appellant alleging commission of serious irregularity in regularising/authorising the payment of the above three cheques thereby violating the procedure of the bank as a result of which the Bank suffered huge monetary loss. The appellant was placed under suspension by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 17.4.2012 pending inquiry. According to the appellant, vide letter dated 25.4.2012, he requested the respondent Bank to supply him the photo copy of the documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority but the same were denied to him. He was not allowed to inspect the record. On 16.6.2012, the appellant informed the Assistant general Manager, Dimapur about his inability to give reply to the show cause notice for not allowing him to inspect the documents. The appellant submitted his reply vide letter dated 12.9.2012 denying all the allegations against him. The appellant asserts that the Single Window Operator vide letter dated 20.9.2012 also categorically stated his non involvement in the transaction. Vide letter dated 22.9.2012, the disciplinary authority informed the appointment of Inquiry Officer to the appellant and also allowed him to engage defence representative of his choice to represent him. The appellant engaged his defence representative. According to the appellant, during the course of inquiry on 19.11.2012, the Branch Manager as prosecution witness No.1 clearly admitted that he was not aware of giving training/sensitisation or demonstration to the appellant and other staff in the Zunheboto Branch by the State Bank of India for application of fugitive ink test/ultra violet lamp test operation to detect fraud transaction. He further admitted that it was the duty of the Single Window operator to ensure passing of the cheque by two Passing Officers before making the payment across the counter. He further admitted that there was no doubt on the legitimacy of the account holders and that there was possibility of the three parties signatures obtained after the cheques were passed by the appellant. The Inquiry Officer vide report dated 31.12.2012 recorded that all the charges were proved against the appellant. According to the appellant, none of the adverse original documents relied upon by the respondent Bank were produced as per the rules; none of the signatories of the cheques had been called for and examined and none of the account holders of the three cheques were called. On the basis of the enquiry report, the respondent disciplinary authority vide letter dated 15.2.2013 directed the appellant to give his written statement of defence within seven days. The appellant submitted his reply in defence dated 5.3.2013 rebutting the findings of the Inquiry Officer by stating that he diligently verified and ascertained the cheques which were found to be proper and genuine to naked eyes; the question of referring to home branch did not arise as the said practice had already discontinued. No bank instruction was brought to his notice. He was not imparted the core banking system. It was the duty of the Single Window Operator to enter the high value transaction in register. In nut shell, he denied all the allegations levelled against him. The respondent appointing authority vide impugned order dated 4.4.2013 accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and awarded major punishment of compulsory retirement from service to the appellant in terms of Rule 67(h) of State Bank of India Officer Service Rules (in short, "the Rules"). Vide letter dated 15.5.2013, the respondent authorities informed the appellant that he can prefer departmental appeal before the appellate authority within 45 days. Accordingly, the appellant filed appeal before the Chief General Manager, SBI, Local Head office, Gauhati. Vide order dated 17.10.2013, the respondent appellate authority upheld the decision of the appointing authority and rejected his appeal. The appellant sought documents through RTI vide letter dated 4.11.2013. Certain documents were provided to the appellant vide letter dated 27.11.2013. The appellant came to know for the first time about the advice sought from the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) by the respondent Bank and the recommendation dated 9.8.2012 made by CVO upon which the Bank conducted the enquiry against him to inflict severe punishment upon him. The writ petition filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge having been dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2017, he has filed the instant writ appeal.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State Bank of India in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, it was inter alia stated that the appellant knowing fully that the cheques did not enter into the high value transaction register, he had given his authorisation on the said cheques for making payment immediately. The transaction took place due to authorisation by the appellant only and no other officer had put his signatures for authorisation. The action taken against the appellant was supported in the said affidavit. The appellant had filed the rejoinder affidavit reiterating the averments made in the writ petition and denying the contents made in the counter affidavit.