ROOPCHAND WASWANI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 20/03/1984 of the Chief General Manager by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was an officer in the State Bank of India, Bhopal in the Junior Management Cadre Grade-I. He was served with a charge-sheet on 24/06/1978. The charge against him was that while working as a Clerk in the Bank in the year 1971 he had committed a fraud upon the Bank to the extent of Rs. 35,513/-. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to this charge. The departmental enquiry was held by the enquiry officer in which the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. The enquiry report is dated 11/11/1983 (Annexure-H). The enquiry officer in his report found at two fictitious accounts were opened in the names of J.R.M. Rao and R.P. Saxena, spurious credit entries were made in those accounts and the money was withdrawn. There was no direct evidence, to hold that the petitioner got these accounts opened as the documents in question were found missing from the Bank. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It was found that the petitioner had remitted a total amount of Rs. 20,300/- from Bhopal to Shri M.K. Gupta of New Delhi through five bank drafts. Three of these bank drafts were of the State Bank of India. One of the bank drafts was for Rs. 4,000/- and it is an admitted fact that it was issued on the application of the petitioner by the Bank. Shri M. K. Gupta during the course of the preliminary enquiry wrote letter dated 10/02/1977 to the Bank to the effect that these five drafts were received by him from the petitioner. The two bank drafts were issued at the instance of J.R.M. Rao. These were for Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 6,400/. During the course of his evidence in the enquiry Shri M.K. Gupta resiled from his letter and stated that only one bank draft of Rs. 4,000/- was received by him from the petitioner and the two other bank drafts issued by the State Bank of India, Bhopal were received by him from one Shri Raman Rao. The enquiry officer after appreciation of the evidence held that the statement of Shri M. K. Gupta in his letter dated 10/02/1977 was true and he made a false statement during the enquiry that the two bank drafts were received by him from Raman Rao. According to Shri M.K. Gupta the petitioner had sent the bank draft of Rs. 4,000/- to him for purchasing a DDA plot. On cross-examination of Shri M. K. Gupta it was revealed that he did not know Raman Rao and the subsequent letter which is said to have been written by him to the Bank did not contain true facts. The report of the enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty for this fraud was accepted by the Chief General Manager, who was the disciplinary authority and the petitioner was dismissed from service by the impugned order. His appeal was rejected by the appellate authority. The petitioner filed a writ petition earlier which was registered as Misc. Petition No. 2771 of 1984 and by order dated 20/11/1986 this Court directed the appellate authority to hear the petitioner again and pass a reasoned order. That was done. The appellate authority (Local Board) passed a detailed order dated 26/12/1987 and rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The appellate authority found that nexus between the petitioner and the fraud has been established by the circumstantial evidence.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and unreasonable. It is stated that the petitioner had nothing to do with the opening of the fictitious accounts or withdrawal of money from those accounts. According to the petitioner, the draft of Rs. 4,000/- sent by him to Shri M.K. Gupta was not established as having been issued on withdrawal of the money from these accounts and, therefore, the charge is not brought home to the petitioner. It is submitted that the letter dated 10/02/1977 of Shri M.K. Gupta could not be relied upon in preference to his evidence before the enquiry officer. It is contended that the petitioner could not be punished on mere suspicion only. The other point which has been raised in the petition is that the petitioner was appointed by the Executive Committee as per rules which were prevalent at the time of his appointment and, therefore, his services could not be terminated by the Chief General Manager who is inferior in rank to the Executive Committee.