K.SURESH KAUSHIK Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide RO1/GR1/DP/37 dtd. 6/4/2009 discharging the petitioner from the services of Bank with all benefits and treating the period of suspension as not spent on duty and the consequential order vide No.DGM(H)/DP/267 dtd. 18/6/2009 passed by the 3rd respondent confirming the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, as being illegal and contrary to the Bipartite Settlement.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Cashier-cum-Clerk in State Bank of Hyderabad on 22/6/1989 and thereafter he was posted as Single Window Operator at Saidabad Branch of the respondent bank. It is stated that the services of Cashiers-cum- Clerks/Single Window Operators are governed by various Awards/Bipartite Settlements arrived at between the managements of various banks including the respondent bank and their Workmen represented by their associations. While the petitioner was working as Single Window Operator on 26/2/2007, one S.Visweswara Rao having Savings Bank Account bearing No.52012448908 in Saidabad branch had given a complaint stating that he deposited an amount of Rs.10,500.00 on 16/1/2007 and that on the same day there was a cash withdrawal of Rs.20,000.00 from his account which he had not withdrawn and as such he requested the Branch Manager to examine the matter and to credit the amount to his account. On the same day, the said Visweswara Rao had given another letter dtd. 26/2/2007 withdrawing the said complaint which he had given earlier. However, without taking into consideration the subsequent letter of withdrawal of the complaint given by the said account holder, the 2nd respondent vide his letter dtd. 26/2/2007, placed him under suspension pending further investigation and disciplinary action. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide letter dtd. 7/3/2007 had called for explanation of the petitioner regarding the irregularities said to have been committed by him on 16/1/2007 and that the petitioner had submitted his explanation dtd. 14/3/2007 denying the allegation alleged against him. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide letter dtd. 18/6/2007 had served a charge sheet-cum-show cause notice stating that the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory and as such initiated disciplinary action for gross misconduct against the petitioner under provision 5 (j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dtd. 10/4/2002. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted his written statement vide letter dtd. 5/7/2007 stating that the subject payment was genuine and backed by appropriate withdrawal letter from the account holder and that the said statement was not accepted by the 2nd respondent and as such he ordered enquiry. Thereafter, the 4th respondent-Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report dtd. 10/1/2008 stating that the charges were not established against the petitioner. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent deferred from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and arrived at his own findings vide his orders dtd. 24/6/2008 and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, to which he has submitted his explanation vide letter dtd. 11/8/2008. It is further stated that the account holder, who was examined as MW3, had clearly stated that the payment was genuine and has been supported by his withdrawal letter given to his friend and, therefore, the finding of the 2nd respondent regarding charges are perverse and without evidence. It is further stated that vide letter dtd. 25/3/2009, the 2nd respondent had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the punishment for discharge should not be imposed on him. The petitioner vide his letter dtd. 31/3/2009 submitted his explanation stating that without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the Enquiry Report, issued the show cause notice and that it is arbitrary and against all principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide orders dtd. 6/4/2009 awarded the punishment of discharge from service in terms of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen dtd. 10/4/2002. Aggrieved by the orders of the 2nd respondent dtd. 6/4/2009, the petitioner has preferred an appeal dtd. 22/4/2009 before the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, vide his letter dtd. 18/6/2009, confirmed the orders of the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that there is no evidence adduced by the Management to prove any of the charges and that there is failure of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned orders by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. It is further stated that there is no financial loss as such to the respondent bank and that the punishment of discharge awarded to him is shockingly disproportionate to the offences charged and as such the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent dtd. 28/6/2008 and 6/4/2009 as well as the orders of the 3rd respondent dtd. 18/6/2009 are liable to be set aside and consequently the petitioner has to be reinstated with all benefits.

(3.) A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3 stating that the petitioner is governed by the employees Service Regulations and that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated in accordance with the Settlement dtd. 10/4/2002 regarding disciplinary action which was taken against the employees. The petitioner was appointed as a Cashier-cum-Clerk on 22/6/1989 on compassionate grounds and he worked at Chikkadapally and Chaitanyapuri branches and on 1/11/2006 he was transferred to Saidabad branch as Single Window Operator and that his services during that period were not satisfactory. The petitioner was also warned for shortage of cash of Rs.1.04 lakshs on 12/2/2004 while he was working at Chaitanyapuri branch and that the cash was later adjusted by his father. The petitioner has also offered his guarantee to a third person for availment of loan at Indian Overseas Bank, Secunderabad, in his personal capacity without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority and thus, the petitioner had a doubtful integrity in discharging his duties in the bank. It is further stated that the withdrawal form of one Sista Visweswara Rao, Savings Bank Account holder was not traceable/missing from the branch records and from the voucher verification report also, it was evident that withdrawal was passed and paid under I.D. of the petitioner and that in view of the serious nature of irregularities, the Disciplinary Authority placed the petitioner under suspension on 26/2/2007, the date of complaint given by the Savings Bank Account Holder, pending further investigation. It is further stated that prima facie case is made out that the payment made by the petitioner was not in order and, therefore, the 2nd respondent held the charge that the petitioner has made the payment unauthorizedly and that he failed to discharge his duty with diligence and grossly violated the procedure of the bank. It is further stated that while the petitioner was working as Single Window Operator at Saidabad branch, he made the payment of Rs.20,000.00 by debit to the customer account on 16/1/2007. The evidence of MW-1 (Assistant Manager) clearly shows that the petitioner has made the said payment by using his identity number as per records and thus it was clearly established that the petitioner has raised a debit of Rs.20,000.00 unauthorizedly in the Savings Bank Account of Sista Visweswara Rao and it was done with the petitioner I.D. It is further stated that the Disciplinary Authority, after going through the entire evidence on record as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer for the reasons mentioned in his order dtd. 24/6/2008. It is further stated that the past record of the petitioner indicates that vide proceedings dtd. 2/4/2004 he was warned for cash shortage of Rs.1.04 lakhs from his possession while he was working at Chaitanyapuri branch, Hyderabad and that he was also issued with charge sheet dtd. 24/3/2009 for not obtaining prior permission from the competent authority for standing as guarantor for a loan sanctioned to one Dr.C.Krishna Murthy, by the Corporation Bank. It is further submitted that keeping in view the nature of duties performed by the petitioner and taking into consideration the relevant facts, he was imposed with penalty of discharge from the services of the bank in terms of Memorandum of Settlement of Disciplinary action Procedure for Workmen dtd. 10/4/2002 and as such there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.