SHIVRAM PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 19.3.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 12.5.2007 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner in the present case was serving as a Head Clerk in the services of the State Bank of Indore (now State Bank of India), which is a nationalised bank and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. A charge sheet was issued on 25.11.92 alleging misconduct on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner promptly submitted a reply on 5.1.93 denying all the charges levelled against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that it was alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner has facilitated withdrawal of Rs.20,000/ - from the bank account of one Smt. Jyoti Pathak and payment at the behest of the petitioner was made to one Shri Heera Lal. It has also been argued that as per the allegations levelled in the charge sheet, it was the the petitioner, who has identified Shri Heeralal as account holder and based upon the petitioner's identification, the clerk incharge for verifying the signature and the higher authorities as well as cashier have paid the amount Rs.20,000/ - to Shri Heeralal. It has also been stated in the writ petition that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, however in criminal trial, the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment of acquittal dated 30th March, 2000. The petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 1992 itself and during pendency of the criminal case, the departmental enquiry was stayed by the disciplinary authority as the criminal case was pending. The departmental enquiry was started afresh after the petitioner's acquittal in the year 2000 and a final order was passed on 19.3.2001 dismissing the petitioner from the services. The petitioner's appeal was also rejected vide order dated 28.6.2001 and the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of punishment and the order rejecting his appeal came before this Court by filing a writ petition. The writ petition was registered as WP No.1436/2001. This Court vide order dated 23.1.2007 has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the petitioner's appeal afresh keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appellate authority once again in a mechanical manner has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner even though the charges levelled in the departmental enquiry and the charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case were identical in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer are perverse findings, as at no point of time the petitioner has identified Heeralal nor his signature and there is no documentary evidence to support the prosecution case. It has been stated that on account of lapses committed on the part of the other officers, the petitioner has made a scapegoat and the order of punishment has been inflicted upon him. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. and Others Vs. Girish Chandra Sharma, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 206 and his contention is that in case of a collective decision which amounts to misconduct on the part of a large number of employees, a person alone cannot be made a scapegoat. His contention is that on account of lapses committed by the other employees, the petitioner has been made a scapegoat and merely because the employees, who have committed lapses, have stated against the petitioner, he could not have been punished in the manner and method it has been done by the authorities. He has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 19.3.2001 and 12.5.2007.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently argued before this Court that it was the petitioner, who has facilitated withdrawal of Rs.20,000/ - from the account of one Smt. Jyoti Pathak and therefore, the charge sheet was issued on 25.11.92. She has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of witnesses and the Enquiry Report and her contention is that it was the petitioner, who has identified Heeralal and Heeralal has withdrawn the amount of Rs.20,000/ - based upon the oral identification of Heeralal by the petitioner. It has been stated that the witnesses have categorically stated before the Inquiry Officer that it was the petitioner and his conduct, which resulted in withdrawal of Rs.20,000/ - from the bank account of Smt. Jyoti Pathak. She has also argued before this Court that mere acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case will not help the petitioner at all as the standard of proof in criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry are based on different principles. It has also been argued that that after a remand order was passed by this Court, the appellate authority has once again applied its mind and passed the speaking order holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct and his appeal has been held to be devoid of merit and substance. It has also been argued that the scope of interference in the departmental enquiry is quite limited and the petitioner has not been able to point out violation of any statutory provision of law governing the field nor the principles of natural justice and fair play and therefore the question of interference by this Court with the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by the appellate authority does not arise. She has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (D) Through LRs Vs. Union of India, reported in JT 2012 (9) SC 566 and her contention is that the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case will not help to the petitioner in any manner keeping in view judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. She has also argued that the punishment awarded in the departmental enquiry is based upon the statement recorded during the departmental proceedings and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to be based upon no evidence. She has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.