CHANDRA BHUSHAN PD.SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was a clerk -cum -cashier at the relevant time posted in Bikram Branch, in the district of Patna. During his tenure of posting between 23.7.1992 and 24.1.2003 certain serious lapses amounting to misconduct was detected which compelled the respondents to draw up charge - sheet against him. Charges are detailed in charge -sheet contained in Annexure -1 and they are four of them. Some essence of the charges are that on a deposit made by one customer of Rs. 80,000/ - two FDRs of the same amount in same name was produced by the petitioner having two different serial numbers. Thereafter the said FDRs have been used to procure loans from the Bank and shown to have been taken by one customer namely, Sajandhari Singh. When subsequently he was confronted by the branch for non -payment of the two loans a complaint was made by him protesting and denying the fact that he had taken the two loans in question with the FDRs concerned. A detailed enquiry came to be held against the petitioner. Evidence both oral and documentary were led in the matter. The enquiry officer after considering all the evidence came to a concluded finding that the petitioner was guilty of all the four charges which were brought against him. Based on the enquiry report a show cause was issued to the petitioner. Explanation offered by the petitioner not having been found satisfactory, the present order of punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and or provident fund and gratuity as would be due without disqualification from future employment came to be imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority in term of Clause 6(b) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002. The appellate authority also did not find any cogent reason to disagree with the order of punishment, keeping in mind the preponderance of evidence and finding which came to be recorded against the petitioner.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in the present writ application therefore has challenged both the orders of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as contained in Annexure -10 as well as the appellate authority 'sorder contained in Annexure -14. After some strenuous argument in trying to dig holes in the enquiry which was held against the petitioner, the matter has finally boiled down to the issue of punishment order which has come to be imposed against the petitioner. The thrust of the argument now is that punishment of removal passed against the petitioner is a harsh order and therefore violates the principle of proportionality. The issue therefore is now to be considered more from the point of quantum of punishment rather than the merit of the punishment. The question of considering the punishment on the ground of proportionality could have been considered, if the charges being serious in nature, gave any benefit of doubt to the petitioner and a categorical finding had not come to be recorded by the enquiry officer. The charges are that the petitioner has not conducted himself with utmost honesty and devotion with regard to the responsibility which was saddled upon him by the respondent Bank. Banking is a sensitive industry and the conduct of the petitioner led to serious embarrassment for the bank because a complaint of the serious kind was made by a customer which was a creation of the petitioner. The Court could have considered directing the respondents to consider imposing some other punishment in lieu of removal if the present misconduct of the petitioner was the first of its kind. From the counter affidavit it emerges as per the statement in para 5 that earlier also the allegation of fake withdrawal from an account of a customer was alleged against the petitioner and an enquiry was held and major punishment of stopping of four increments with cumulative effect came to be imposed against him. Even that act of the petitioner points towards his lack of honesty and integrity vis -a -vis his responsibility as a clerk -cum - cashier. This is the second misadventure which has been embarked upon by the petitioner and this could be one of the reasons and circumstances why the Court comes to a concluded opinion that the petitioner does not deserve any other lenient punishment in the matter. If the authorities in their opinion have passed the order of removal with retiral benefits accruing in favour of the petitioner with no bar to future employment then in the opinion of this Court they have taken a lenient view in the given facts and circumstances. The punishment order therefore does not suffer from vice of being harsh or excessive.

(3.) THE writ application is dismissed.