VINAY KANT THAKUR Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The question involved in this writ application is that if a Bank cannot bank upon its own employees what procedure should it follow and what punishments can be awarded to the delinquent officer. It is to be noted at this stage that on an earlier occasion prior to the present enquiry report the petitioner was issued charge sheet No. BZ/VIG/277/387 dated 24/11/1999, vide Disciplinary Authority Order No. BZ/VIG/277/439 dated 30/09/2000. The punishment of withholding of 10 increments was awarded to the petitioner (as submitted by counsel for the petitioner) but its execution was kept in abeyance. It appears that the petitioner Vinay Kant Thakur was posted as Manager at the Bank's Machhariyawan Branch during the period September 9, 199 6/07/1999. The Bank found that he committed certain acts of malfeasance and misfeasance and also misconduct in itself as an employee of the Bank and was involved in certain acts of omission and commission. For all these he was placed under suspension vide Order No. BZ/VIG/277/239 dated 23/08/1999 and thereafter Charge-sheet No. BZ/VIG/277/299 dated 24/07/2000 was issued to him under Regulation 6 of the Allahabad Bank Officers and Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. As many as seven charges were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the above charge-sheet vide his letter dated 14/08/2000 and denied all the charges levelled against him. The Bank being dissatisfied with the explanations furnished directed that a departmental enquiry be initiated to find the truth or otherwise of the said charge. An enquiry was made, proper opportunity was given to the petitioner and thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated February 7, 2003 proposed that the petitioner be dismissed from the Bank service with immediate effect which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal but as no relief could be obtained by him in the appeal he has come to this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges which were not found proved were held to be proved by the Disciplinary Authority and without issuing any notice to differ from the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer the punishment has been awarded. He has taken me through the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. After going through the said findings, I am unable to concede to the argument submitted by the petitioner. The manner in which the findings have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer may or may not be satisfactory but a perusal of the findings would clearly show that the Enquiry Officer has found that some charges were proved in toto and some were partially proved. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner acted in a most irregular and irresponsible manner, operated the accounts of others, withdrew the amount, adjusted the same and in this manner allowed the consumers to drag the Bank in litigation before the Consumer Forum. In response to charge No. 5 the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner operated the account but at the time of enquiry he submitted a letter from the consumer/customer that the consumer was satisfied with the handling of the account and the Bank's work and working. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nobody can stop a customer from going to a Court of law and if that is so the petitioner cannot be held liable.

(3.) The facts are that certain accounts were operated by the present petitioner. He withdrew the money from the account and at the time of the enquiry he produced the letter of authorisation from the customer. I am at a loss to understand that how a letter issued subsequent to the account's operation would justify the petitioner handling the account without an authorisation on the date when he handled the account and took care of the money of the account holder. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is not that the petitioner is not guilty but while saying that the Bank was dragged in the litigation he simply wanted to say that if there was already authorisation there was no reason for the customer to go to the Consumer Forum seeking certain reliefs against the Bank. The seven charges are serious in nature. Every charge says that the charged officer adjusted the entry of Branch, assisted set of persons in misappropriating the accounts, held the customers' accounts, withdrew amounts from the Bank and made simple account entries to cover up all his lapses. It would be unjust to say that the Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty.