PROBIN KUMAR PHUKAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner initially joined as Personnel Officer of the United Bank of India in 1977. He was posted as Manager (MM Scale-II) in Sibsagar Branch and thereafter promoted to the post of Manager (MM Scale-Ill) and posted in Nagaon Branch during 3.11.1986 to 18.7.1990. While he was posted as Deputy Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Central Assam Region in Guwahati he was served with articles of charges, statement of allegations on which the articles of charges were based and a list of documents on which the Management relied on in support of the articles of charges by a notice dated 11.12.1992 of the Deputy General Manager & Zonal Manager, Disciplinary Authority. By the said notice dated 11.12.19,92, the petitioner was asked to submit his statement of defence and the petitioner submitted his statement of defence in his letter dated 19.12.1992 denying the said charges. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by Sri D.N. Chakraborty, Enquiry Officer. Shri Chakraborty submitted the enquiry report dated 15.6.1996 holding the petitioner guilty of all the eight charges In the said enquiry report, however, the Enquiry Officer stated that financial loss to the Bank has not been proved in the enquiry. The said enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner by letter dated 13.8.1996 of the Disciplinary Authority and the petitioner submitted his written submission on the enquiry report in his letter dated 10.10.1996. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the said written submission of the petitioner passed an order dated 22.10.1998 wherein he held that the charges No. 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 had been proved in the enquiry, but charges No. 7 and 8 had not been proved in the enquiry. Regarding the finding of the Enquiry Officer that financial loss to the Bank has not been proved, the Disciplinary Authority held that the said remark was beyond the scope of the enquiry in view of the fact that the quantum of Bank's loss had not been indicatedin the charge-sheet. In the said order dated 22.10.1998, the Disciplinary Authority further held that the major penalty of removal was warranted in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the charges proved and established against the petitioner and imposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.10.1998 of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate relief.

(2.) Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a reading of the enquiry report and the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority would show that the petitioner had allowed some excess withdrawals and some loans to parties as Manager of the Bank in Nagaon. According to Mr. Dutta, such acts on the part of the petitioner in allowing overdrawals and loans to various parties as Manager of the Bank might be errors of judgment but did not amount to misconduct. In support of this argument, he cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India -Vs- J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022, wherein it has inter alia been observed that a single act of omission or error of judgment would ordinarily not amount to misconduct but if such omission or error results in serious or atrocious consequences, it may amount to misconduct. Mr. Dutta submitted that the acts of the petitioner in allowing the overdrawals and loans to various parties may have amounted to misconduct if such acts of the petitioner had caused any financial loss to the Bank. But the enquiry Officer had held in his report that financial loss to the Bank had not been established. Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel assisting Mr. Dutta, also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Dipankar Sengupta -Vs- United Bank of India, 1998 (2) CLJ 204, in which the Calcutta High Court relied on the said decision of the Supreme Court in Union of' India -Vs- J. Ahmed (supra) and held that misconduct had not been established against the delinquent employee in that case.

(3.) In reply, Mr. B.K Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that under regulation 3(1) of the United Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (for short "the Conduct Regulations") every officer employee is under a duty to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer and under regulation 3(3) he has to act as per the direction of his official superior. The findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority would show that the petitioner has flouted the instruction of the higher officer of the Bank and has granted overdrawals and loans in excess of his power. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of an officer of the Bank and he was guilty of the misconduct described in regulations 3(1) and 3(3) of the Conduct Regulations. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Disciplinary Authority- cum-Regional Manager - Vs- Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69, in which the Supreme Court while interpreting a similar provision in the Regulations applicable to officer employees of the Central Bank of India has held that acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of such Regulation and it constitutes misconduct and no further proof of loss is really necessary. Mr. Das also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harinarayan Srivastav -Vs- United Commercial Bank, (1997) 4 SCC 384, and Tara Chand Vyas -Vs-Chairman & Disciplinary Authority (1997) 4 SCC 565, in which orders of the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment on bank employees with regard to sanction and disbursement of loans have not been interfered with by the Supreme Court. He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India - Vs- Vishwa Mohan, (1998) 4 SCC 310, wherein the punishment of dismissal awarded to a Bank employee for his acts of bribery, embezzlement, misappropriation and other acts unbecoming of a bank officer was not interfered with by the Supreme Court. He further submitted that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in a disciplinary proceeding against delinquent employees is very limited and the Court cannot reappreciate the evidence that have been adduced in the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings as it is not exercising the power of appeal. He cited the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Naren Hazarika -Vs- State Bank of India, (1999) 2 GLR 175, in which the Court held that judicial review was not an appeal, but a review of the manner in Which the decision was made and it was only meant to ensure that the delinquent received fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reached was necessarily correct in the view of the court.