ASHISH KUMAR GOON Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Canara Bank. He earned his promotion in due course and at the point in time he was employed as Special Assistant and was posted in the Sikh Temple Branch, Guwahati since 17/6/1994. The appellant was served with a Show-Cause notice dtd. 26/8/2002 issued by the Deputy General Manager (DGM), Circle Office, Calcutta alleging irregular adjustments in Suspense Deposit Account. The appellant replied to the Show-Cause notice denying the allegations made. The Disciplinary Authority did not accept his explanations/reply. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The appellant participated in the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dtd. 14/6/2003 holding all the charges levelled against the appellant to be proved. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed major punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" as provided for under Regulation 4 (B) of Chapter XI of the Canara Bank Service Code (hereinafter referred as "Service Code"). The appellant being aggrieved by the order of "Compulsory Retirement", preferred an appeal before the Authority prescribed under the Service Code. His appeal also being rejected by the Appellate Authority, he preferred a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 6377/2005 challenging the validity, legality and proprietary of the order of "Compulsory Retirement" dtd. 27/9/2003 as well as the order dtd. 30/12/2004 passed by the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge vide Judgment dtd. 17/9/2013 dismissed the writ petition declining to interfere with the order of Compulsory Retirement passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations/charges against the appellant were totally uncalled for as the appellant had been diligent in rendering his service since his date of appointment. The learned Senior counsel referring to the communication dtd. 26/8/2002 would submit that the same was issued to the appellant to explain Irregular Adjustment in suspense Deposit Account at your Branch- Irregularities observed on your part. There was no allegation of causing financial loss to the bank or wrongful gain by the appellant. That apart, the learned Senior counsel urged that during the enquiry proceedings, there are management witnesses who had testified that the appellant was one of the excellent employees of the Branch. The learned Senior counsel also submits that as per the Canara Bank Service Code "Misconduct" may be "gross misconduct" or "minor misconduct". Referring to Clause 3 of the Service Code, he submits that the acts and omission of "gross misconduct" referred thereunder does not relate to any of the charges made against the appellant. Instead at best, the acts or omissions provided for under Clause 5 (d) can be attributed to the appellant namely "breach of any rule of business of the bank or instruction for the running of any department". He refers to Clause 6 of the Service Code and submits that the punishment pursuant to any finding arrived at in respect of minor misconduct are provided for under Clause 6 of the Service Code. The learned Senior counsel, therefore submits that besides the enquiry being conducted in gross violation of the procedures mandated under law and with total disregard to the lack of evidence against the appellant, even assuming though not admitting that pursuant to the enquiry any punishment was required to be imposed upon the appellant, the same could only have been done as provided for under the Service Code for those which relate to minor misconduct. The learned Senior counsel, therefore, submits that the punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellant Authority is wholly disproportionate and the learned Single Judge having failed to pass appropriate orders in this regard, the order of the learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with, set aside and consequently, the punishment imposed by the Bank Authorities be set aside and quashed. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior counsel would relied upon the following Judgments:

(3.) Per contra, Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the Bank strongly disputes the contentions of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not cause any financial loss to the Bank. On the contrary, referring to the communication dtd. 26/8/2002, he submits that the said communication gave a detailed descriptions of irregularities caused by the appellant in respect of a Suspense Account maintained at the Bank by preparing an unauthorized debit and credit vouchers in favour of one M/S Ishu Sales Corporation. According to the Bank, such casting mistakes were occasioned due to the failure of the appellant to adhere to the instructions of Senior Manager by not verifying the old records before debiting the Suspense Deposit. The learned counsel for the Bank further disputes the contention that the acts and omissions of the appellant at best can be termed to be "minor misconduct" and not "gross misconduct" as has been held by the Bank. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the appellant had admitted before the Bank Authorities which is also reflected in his reply as well as in the appeal that the casting mistakes were at the instance of the instructions of Senior Manager. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that such casting mistakes did not happen in a single day rather it was spread over a period of time. It is submitted that in terms of Clause 3 of the Service Code amongst the acts and omissions of any employee which are construed to be gross misconduct, habitual act of minor misconduct as well as doing any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank are some of the acts and omissions which are considered to be gross misconduct and which are attributable to the appellant. The learned counsel for the Bank relied upon a Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia bank and Ors reported in (2021) 3 SCC 806 to support his contention. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that any deviation from the procedural guidelines of the Bank would lead to erosion of public trust of the Banks. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the appellant being a Bank Officer, a great deal of trust is required to be reposed upon an Officer of the Bank and any dereliction of duty in respect of flouting of the norms and procedures cannot be viewed to be a minor mistake or minor misconduct. He, therefore submits that there is no infirmity in the enquiry proceedings and the appellant having admitted that there were casting mistakes, the imposition of punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" is appropriate and no interference thereof is called for by this Court in exercise of judicial review.