Gujarat High Court
Sunil Baburao More vs Bank Of Baroda on 11 October, 2017
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1302 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/
===================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may
be allowed to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or
not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see
the fair copy of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a
substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution of NO
India or any order made thereunder ?
===================================================
SUNIL BABURAO MORE....Petitioner(s)
Versus
BANK OF BARODA....Respondent(s)
===================================================
Appearance:
MR D P KINARIWALA, ADVOCATE for Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DARSHAN M PARIKH, ADVOCATE for Respondent No. 1
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 11/10/2017
CAV JUDGMENT
(1) By way of the present writ petition, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated
22.11.2005 dismissing the petitioner from
service. By subsequent amendment, the
petitioner has also prayed for quashing and
setting aside the order dated 29.09.2004.
Page 1 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
(2) The brief facts of the case are that : the
petitioner was working as CashiercumClerk,
Kosamba Branch, Surat, at the relevant point
of time. On 22.09.2001 one Mrs.Sharifa
Mohmmed Bholat wrote a letter to the
Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Surat,
wherein she has stated that she is having a
joint Savings A/c. No.017447 since 1995 with
Kosamba Branch of Bank of Baroda. She has
further stated that on 23.08.2001 an amount
of Rs.45,000/ was misappropriated vide
Cheque No.752186. She came to know about the
said fact on 19.09.2001, when she had gone
to withdraw money from her account and,
therefore, an oral complaint was made before
the Branch Manager and since nothing was
done, she filed a written complaint.
Pursuant to the said complaint, on
13.12.2001, the Senior Branch Manager wrote
a letter to the Regional Manager along with
the signatures of four staff members wherein
it was mentioned that the petitioner has
made confession in presence of them.
(3) On 09.01.2002 a show cause notice was issued
to the petitioner wherein it was mentioned
that the petitioner had misappropriated
amount of Rs.45,000/ by forging the
signature of the account holder, through one
Page 2 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
Mr.Salim Patel. Petitioner wrote a letter
dated 17.01.2002 and requested to grant him
time to file his reply to the show cause
notice dated 09.01.2002. On 30.01.2002 the
petitioner gave a reply to the said show
cause notice and thereby denied the
allegation made in the show cause notice as
well as the facts regarding confessional
statement referred to in the said show cause
notice was also denied.
(4) On 12.02.2002 the Branch Manager, Kosamba
Branch of Bank of Baroda, Surat, lodged a
complaint against the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 405, 406,
420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
before the Kosamba Police Station being C.R.
No.I20 of 2002. In connection with the
aforesaid F.I.R., the petitioner was
arrested and by order dated 07.03.2002
passed in Criminal Misc. Application
No.1561 of 2002, he was released on regular
bail by this Court.
(5) On 15.03.2002, the order of suspension was
passed against the petitioner by the
Assistant General Manager and Competent
Authority. On 03.04.2003, the chargesheet
was issued to the petitioner wherein it was
Page 3 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
stated that while working as Cashiercum
Clerk, Kosamba Branch, Surat, on 18.07.2001
Mrs.Sharifa Mohmmed Bholat, a customer of
the bank having a joint Savings A/c.
No.017447, requested the petitioner to till
up the cheque for withdrawing Rs.7,000/
from her account. After getting the cheque
filled up from the petitioner, she went to
the Computer Operator to collect a token,
leaving the check book on the counter and at
that time the petitioner pilfered Cheque
No.752186 from the cheque book. Thereafter,
the petitioner presented the said cheque,
putting the date as 21.08.2001, after
filling up the particulars, forging a
signature of the account holder on
23.08.2001, through one Mr.Salim Patel,
misappropriated Rs.45,000/ from the account
of Mrs.Sharifa Mohmmed Bholat. It was stated
in the chargesheet that the petitioner has
accepted the said act in presence of the
staff members of the branch as well as
before the police. It was stated that the
act of the petitioner would amount to gross
misconduct under Clause 19.5(5) of the bi
partie settlement and, therefore, the charge
of criminal act of forgery, stilling and
misappropriating funds, committing act which
shows lack of integrity and honesty, doing
Page 4 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
an act and made such omission prejudicial
and detrimental to the interest of the bank
and act of commission omission of unbecoming
of the bank employee were leveled in the
aforesaid chargesheet. Mr.A.D.Pinagwala,
Senior Branch Manager, Pandessara Branch,
was appointed as an Inquiry Officer.
(6) On 14.05.2003, the Assistant General Manager
and Competent Authority, Surat Region,
passed an order revoking the order of
suspension. In view of the aforesaid order
of revocation of suspension, the petitioner
was relieved from Kosamba Branch. On
22.08.2003 Shri B.S.Pandya, Presenting
Officer, produced a letter containing the
list of management documents and management
witness for the purpose of inquiry against
the petitioner. Again on 29.08.2003 Shri
B.S.Pandya, Presenting Officer, produced
another letter containing list of the
additional management documents. On
15.09.2003, during departmental proceedings,
three management witnesses viz. Shri
B.S.Oak, Shri Y.A.Shaikh, and Mr.V.S.N.
Moorthy were examined. On 20.02.2004, on
behalf of the petitioner, his representative
submitted written arguments.
Page 5 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
(7) On 21.04.2004, the Inquiry Officer submitted
his findings in case of the petitioner. On
the basis of the aforesaid findings, the
Disciplinary Authority wrote a letter on
27.04.2004 to the petitioner and informed
him to make any submission/representation.
(8) In response to the aforesaid letter, the
Union of the petitioner, i.e Gujarat Bank
Workers Union, submitted the reply/
representation dated 28.5.2004, on behalf of
the petitioner, wherein it was stated that
it has not been proved that who delivered
the cheque book or pilfered the cheque book.
Only on hearsay evidence the charges are
proved and no opinion of a handwriting
expert was sought to prove his involvement
in the case.
(9) Thereafter, on 12/30.08.2004, the Assistant
General Manager, Surat Region and
Disciplinary Authority has passed an order
of “Dismissal from Banks Service without
Notice”. However, further opportunity of
personal hearing was also given to the
petitioner.
(10) Finally, on 29.09.2004, after giving
personal hearing to the petitioner, was
Page 6 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
dismissed from service. Against the said
order, the petitioner, on 04.09.2004,
preferred Appeal No.1 of 2004 before the
Appellate Authority of Bank of Baroda, which
came to be dismissed vide order dated
22.11.2005 by Deputy General Manager, South
Gujarat Zone, Surat and Appellate Authority,
which has given rise to filing of the
present petition.
(11) Learned Advocate Mr.D.P.Kinariwala appearing
on behalf of the petitioner has submitted
that the first charge leveled against the
petitioner was that he committed forgery and
misappropriation of funds. He has submitted
that so far this charge is concerned, it was
contended by the petitioner before the
Inquiry Officer and Appellate Authority that
the said charge is based merely on hearsay
evidence only. He has further submitted that
there was nothing on record to show that the
signature of Cheque No.752186 was forged by
the petitioner. He has submitted that no
hand writing expert’s opinion was taken by
the respondent Bank in this regard.
(12) Learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala has contended
that the departmental proceedings were
initiated due to the letter dated 22.09.2001
Page 7 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
written by one Mrs.Sharifa Mohmmed Bholat, a
customer of the bank having a joint Savings
A/c. No.017447. He has further submitted
that even in that letter, no allegation
about misappropriation of funds from her
account at the hands of the petitioner has
been made. On the contrary, she has said
that she does not know that who has
withdrawn the amount from her account.
Learned advocate has submitted that even
explanation called for from the petitioner
vide letter dated 09.01.2002 is totally in
contradiction to the letter dated
22.09.2001, written by the account holder.
It is submitted that in the said letter,
Mrs.Sharifa Mohmmed Bholat, has not stated
anything about that the petitioner as
misappropriated of the amount of Rs.45,000/
from her Savings A/c.
(13) Learned advocate for the petitioner further
submitted that no single witness has said
that the petitioner has received amount of
Rs.45,000/. On the contrary, one of the
witnesses during the inquiry proceedings has
specifically said that it was Mr.Salim
Patel, who received amount of Rs.44,000/
and there is also further record available
that the said witness, in spite of the fact
Page 8 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
that Rs.1,000/ was given less, he had left
because he was afraid of being caught.
(14) Learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala has submitted
that Shri B.S.Oak, Officer, Shri Sajanbabu,
Officer, Shri Y.A.Shaikh, SubAssistant, and
Mr.V.S.N. Moorthy are the officers of the
bank. Along with the said four officers,
Senior Branch Manager on 13.12.2001 wrote a
letter to the Regional Manager, Bank of
Baroda, informing him that the petitioner
has today confessed orally of his
involvement in the said fraudulently
withdrawal before the authority and in
presence of the other staff members. The
said letter further states that the account
holder Mrs.Sharifa Mohmmed Bholat also
informed that she has received the amount
fraudulently withdrawal from her. It is
further submitted that there is no written
admission/confession by the petitioner.
Mr.Kinariwala further submitted that the
signatures of the letter dated 13.12.2001
are the signatures of the status of the
officers of the Bank’s Branch. The branch is
having different cadre of employees viz.
starting from Peon to the Branch Manager. It
is submitted that very conveniently, the
letter dated 13.12.2001 was brought up by
Page 9 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
the Branch Manager and other officers with a
view to save their officers and the
petitioner is made a scapegoat of that
fraudulent act.
(15) Learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala further
submitted that since the officer of the
management was involved in that act (by
passing a cheque in spite of the fact that
there was a difference in signature), they
themselves have found out a way to save
their officers and the Branch Manager wrote
a letter to the Regional Manager with the
signatures of the other officers saying that
the petitioner has made confession. Learned
advocate for the petitioner has submitted
that on the contrary involvement of Mr.Y.A.
Shaikh and Mr.M.B.Bhatt is proved because
they were passing officers who have passed
the cheque in spite of the fact that there
was a difference in signature.
(16) It is submitted by Mr.Kinariwala that even
without admitting the same, if the letter
dated 13.12.2001 could be said to be a
confessional statement of the petitioner,
then it cannot be said that the socalled
statement constituted the offence against
Page 10 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
the petitioner. Learned advocate
Mr.Kinariwala further submitted that the so
called oral confession was made before the
then Branch Manager, who was not examined
during the departmental inquiry. It is
submitted that it was for the bank who has
to prove the allegation against the
petitioner and there is nothing on record to
show that what bona fide reason Branch
Manager is not examined.
(17) Learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala also
submitted that the person, who had issued
the token, was not shown as witness and was
not examined during the departmental
proceedings. It is submitted that if the
person who had issued the token i.e.
Mr.Majmudar would have been examined in that
case he would have certainly pointed out the
real fact before the departmental
proceedings. He has further submitted that
the allegation of the bank was that the
petitioner has misappropriated the amount of
Rs.45,000/, however, the account holder has
not said that the petitioner has
misappropriated the amount of Rs.45,000/
from her account. Not only that it is the
say of the bank and it is the document of
the bank, which reveals the fact that
Page 11 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
Mr.Salim Patel has withdrawn the amount from
the Savings A/c. of the account holder. It
was the say of the bank that the petitioner
has misappropriated the amount of
Rs.45,000/ from the account of Mrs.Sharifa
Mohmmed Bholat and, therefore, the onus was
upon the bank to prove the said allegation.
Mr.Kinariwala has also submitted that the
complainant had already received the whole
amount, hence the petitioner could not have
been imposed such a harsh penalty.
(18) Learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala has submitted
that the Appellate Authority, without
considering the aspects of the matter has
passed an order, confirming the order of
dismissal passed by the Disciplinary
Authority and in that view of the matter,
the order passed by the respondent is bad
and, therefore, the same deserves to be
quashed and set aside by allowing the
present petition.
(19) Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Darshan M.
Parikh appearing on behalf of the
respondentBank has submitted that the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India being too
limited and, therefore, this Court may
Page 12 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
refuse to exercise such jurisdiction. He has
submitted that this is not a case of no
evidence nor is it a case of violation of
principles of natural justice. He has
submitted a fullfledged departmental
inquiry has been held against the petitioner
and he has been given opportunity to defend
himself and after considering the enormity
of proof of the charges leveled against the
petitioner, the disciplinary authority as
well as the appellate authority have come to
a conclusion that the charges leveled
against the petitioner are proved. He has
submitted that the penalty imposed on the
petitioner is commensurate with the gravity
of charges leveled and proved against the
petitioner.
(20) Mr.Parikh has submitted that the fact
remains that admittedly the petitioner
returned the money to the account holder,
which fact suggests the involvement of the
petitioner in the act of misappropriation.
He has submitted that during the inquiry
proceedings leading questions are asked and
the depositions disclose/reveal that the
same are asked. He has stated that the
strict rules of evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 are not applicable and
Page 13 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
the questions which were objected to were
permitted by the Inquiry Officer and it is
denied that the alleged questions are
required to be ignored or that the
conclusion or the punishment are based on
irregularity in procedure during the inquiry
or that the same is bad in law or the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has
submitted that it is not required to examine
the Branch Manager during departmental
inquiry and in absence of his deposition,
the allegation was not proved or that the
confession would not be a confession in the
eye of law.
(21) To buttress his arguments, learned advocate
Mr.Parikh has relied upon the judgements
rendered by Supreme Court in the cases of –
(i) J.D. Jain Vs. The Management of State
Bank of India & Anr., AIR 1982 S.C. 673;
(ii) Tara Chand Vyas Vs. Chairman &
Disciplinary Authority & Ors., (1997) 4
S.C.C. 565; (iii) Divisional Controller,
KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T.Mane, (2005) 3 S.C.C.
254; AND (iv) General Manager (P), Punjab &
Sind Bank & Ors. Vs. Daya Singh, (2010) 11
S.C.C. 233.
Page 14 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
(22) I have heard the learned advocates appearing
on behalf of the respective parties at
length. The documents on record are also
examined by me.
(23) The entire controversy raised in the present
petition rests on the oral confession made
by the petitioner before the officers of the
Bank. The officers, in whose presence the
petitioner had confessed, were examined as
the witnesses in the departmental
proceedings. The petitioner was also
afforded full opportunity of crossexamining
them. At this juncture, it will be apposite
to refer to the judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of J.D.Jain
(supra), wherein, in almost similar set of
facts, the Apex Court has observed thus:
“The learned Tribunal has committed another error in
holding that the finding of the domestic enquiry was based
on “hearsay” evidence. The law is wellsettled that the
strict rules of evidence are not applicable in a domestic
enquiry.
This Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Rattan
Singh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1512 held (at p. 1513):“It is wellsettled that in a domestic enquiry the strict
and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are
logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible.
There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has
reasonable nexus and credibility.
10. xxx xxx
11. In the instant case, the alleged misconduct of the
appellant was that he forged documents, withdrewPage 15 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
Rs.1,500.00Rs.1,000.00 in excess of the amount he was
authorized to do and misappropriated the excess amount of
Rs.1,000,00. With regard to the fact whether the appellant
manipulated the documents withdrew excess amount and
misappropriated it, there is, of course, no direct
evidence of any eyewitness except the appellant’s
‘confession‘ referred to above. The evidence on which
reliance has been taken by the respondent is the
confession and circumstantial evidence, namely, the
authority letter containing the admitted interpolations by
the appellant in his own handwriting in different ink, and
the addition of the digit “1” before 500. The evidence of
Kansal would have been primary and material, if the fact
in issue were whether Kansal authorised the appellant to
make the alterations in the authority letter. But Kansal’s
complaint was to the contrary. For the purpose of a
departmental enquiry complaint, certainly not frivolous,
but substantiated by circumstantial evidence, is enough.
What the respondent sought to establish in the domestic
enquiry was that Kansal had made a verbal complaint with
regard to the withdrawal of excess money by the appellant
in presence of the four witnesses, namely, Wadhera, Gupta,
Ramzan and Sarkar, aforesaid against his advice. On the
complaint of Kansal, the evidence of these four witnesses
is direct as the complaint is said to have been made by
Kansal in their presence and hearing; it is, therefore,
not hearsay. As the respondent has succeeded in proving
that a complaint was made by Kansal on the evidence of the
abovenamed four witnesses, the respondent has succeeded.
No rule of law enjoins that a complaint has to be in
writing as insisted by the Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal has committed yet another grievous
error, in failing to appreciate the confessions made by
the appellant “in the presence of witnesses and to the
higher officer who appeared as witness” (as found by
itself) namely, Wadhera, Ramzan, Gupta and Sarkar,
aforesaid. The confessions of the appellant before the
said witnesses were to the effect that he had altered the
amount in figure and words in his own hand.”
(24) In the foregoing case before the Supreme
Court, the Tribunal directed the
reinstatement by holding that the evidence
against the employee was hearsay in absence
of examination of the complainant. The
delinquent employee had orally confessed
before the employees of the Bank. The
Page 16 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
Supreme Court, after examining the
confession made before the employees of the
Bank, held that the same cannot be said to
be “hearsay” evidence and further held that
the Tribunal fell in error in discarding the
same. In my considered opinion, the present
case will be governed by the observations
made by the Supreme Court in the
aforementioned case. The confession made by
the petitioner before the employees of the
Bank cannot be discarded merely because the
same is hearsay. His confession is proved in
the statements made by the employees of the
Bank. The petitioner was also given full
opportunity to crossexamine them. Nothing
adverse is brought out by him in the cross
examination. Thus, the disciplinary
authority and the inquiry officer are
justified on placing the reliance on the
confession made by the petitioner before the
Bank employees. There was no need to examine
the complainant Mrs.Bholat nor the witness
Mr.Salim Patel in the disciplinary
proceedings, if the petitioner had confessed
his involvement. In the aforenoted
judgement in the case of J.D.Jain (supra),
the complainant was also not examined in the
departmental proceedings. Hence, the
submission canvassed by learned Advocate
Page 17 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
Mr.Kinariwala, that the impugned order
deserves to be quashed and set aside as the
misconduct is proved on the oral confession
does not merit acceptance. The judgements
relied upon by the learned Advocate of the
petitioner, mentioned in the petition deal
with the confession made in a criminal
offence, which cannot be paralleled with the
confession made by a delinquent in the
disciplinary proceedings.
(25) The Supreme Court in the case of A.T.Mane
(supra) has observed thus:
“Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one
should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of
money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for
awarding punishment, on the contrary, it is the loss of
confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into
consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found
guilty of misappropriating corporation’s fund, there is
nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or
faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of
dismissal.”
(26) I may gainfully extract the observations
made by the Supreme Court in the case of
Tara Chand Vyas (Supra):
“The employees and officers working in the banks are not
merely the trustees of the society, but also bear
responsibility and owe duty to the society for
effectuation of socioeconomic empowerment. Their acts and
conduct should be in discharge of that constitutional
objective and if they derelict in the performance of their
duty, it impinges upon the enforcement of the
constitutional philosophy, objective and the goals under
the rule of law. Corruption has taken deep roots among thePage 18 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
S. of the society and the employees holding public office
or responsibility equally became amenable to corrupt
conduct in the discharge of their official duty for
illegal gratification. The banking business and services
are also vitally affected by catastrophic corruption.
Disciplinary measures should, therefore, aim to eradicate
the corrupt proclivity of conduct on the part of the
employees/officers in the public offices including those
in banks. It would, therefore, be necessary to consider,
from this perspective, the need for disciplinary action to
eradicate corruption to properly channelise the use of the
public funds, the live wire for effectuation of socio
economic justice in order to achieve the constitutional
goals set down in the Preamble and to see that the corrupt
conduct of the officers does not degenerate the efficiency
of service leading to denationalisation of the banking
system. What is more, the nationalisation of the banking
service was done in the public interest. Every
employee/officer in the bank should strive to see that
banking operations or services are rendered in the best
interest of the system and the society so as to effectuate
the object of nationalisation. Any conduct that damages,
destroys, defeats or tends to defeat the said purposes
resultantly defeats or tends to defeat the constitutional
objectives which can be meted out with disciplinary action
in accordance with rules lest rectitude in public service
is lost and service becomes a means and source of unjust
enrichment at the cost of the society.
Shri B.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner,
contends that for proof of the charges none of the
witnesses was examined nor any opportunity was given to
crossexamine them and the petitioner has disputed his
liability. As a consequence, the entire enquiry was
vitiated by manifest error apparent on the face of the
record. We find no force in the contention. The thrust of
the imputation of charges was that he had not discharged
his duty as a responsible officer to safeguard the
interest of the Bank by securing adequate security before
the grant of the loans to the dealers, and had not ensured
supply of goods to the loanees. It is based upon the
documentary evidence which has already been part of the
record and copies thereof had been supplied to the
petitioner. Under those circumstances, we do not think
that there is any manifest error apparent on the face of
the record warranting interference. It is then contended
that no reasons have been given in support of the
conclusions to substantiate the charges. The enquiry
officer had elaborately discussed each charge and given
reasons which were considered by the disciplinary
authority and reached the conclusion that the charges were
proved. So had the appellate authority. They are not like
a civil court.”
Page 19 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
Thus, the petitioner, who was working in a
Bank was expected of maintaining highest
degree of honesty and integrity. The
reputation of the Bank is at stake when the
employees indulge in dishonest activities
while dealing with its account holders. The
likelihood of financial loss to the Bank is
enough to constitute a misconduct. It is not
necessary that actual loss should be caused.
Thus, even if no financial loss is caused to
the complainant, it cannot be said that the
petitioner is not guilty of any delinquency.
(27) The contention of the petitioner that the
handwriting expert’s opinion was not sought
for before proving the charge pales into
insignificance in wake of his confession.
Once the confession of the petitioner is
apropos the misconduct is proved, then no
further evidence is required to be
substantiated in support of proving the
charge.
(28) Apropos the contention of the petitioner that
the appellate authority has passed the order
without discussing the relevant aspects of
the matter, a perusal of the order dated
22.11.2005 will reveal that the appellate
authority has passed a wellreasoned order
Page 20 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
after taking into account all the grounds
raised in the appeal filed by the petitioner.
The appellate authority has precisely
observed that in the departmental inquiry
strict rules of law of evidence does not
apply but law of preponderance of
probabilities applies. The order portrays
total application of mind by the appellate
authority, and hence, the aforesaid
contention does not merit acceptance.
(29) In the case of R.R.Parekh Vs. High Court of
Gujarat reported in AIR 2016 SC 3356, the
Apex Court has observed thus:
“A disciplinary inquiry, it is well settled, is not governed
by the strict rules of evidence which govern a criminal trial.
A charge of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding has to be
established on a preponderance of probabilities. The High
Court while exercising its power of judicial review under
Article 226 has to determine as to whether the charge of
misconduct stands established with reference to some legally
acceptable evidence. The High Court would not interfere unless
the findings are found to be perverse. Unless it is a case of
no evidence, the High Court would not exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 226. If there is some legal
evidence to hold that a charge of misconduct is proved, the
sufficiency of the evidence would not fall for reappreciation
or re evaluation before the High Court. Applying these tests,
it is not possible to fault the decision of the Division Bench
of the Gujarat High Court on the charge of misconduct. The
charge of misconduct was established in disciplinary Inquiry
15 of 2000.”
(30) In the present case, the petitioner has not
alleged that the departmental proceedings
are conducted in violation of principles of
natural justice or the Rules governing the
Page 21 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1302/2006 CAV JUDGMENT
undefined
same. It will be apposite to extract the
observations made by the Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Food Corporation of
India, Hyderabad Vs. A.Prahalada Rao,
reported in 2001 (1) SCC 165:
“It is settled law that Court’s power of judicial review in
such cases is limited and Court can interfere where the
authority held the enquiry proceedings in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation
of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry and
imposing punishment or where the conclusion or finding reached
by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence or is
such that no reasonable person would have ever reached. As per
the Regulation, holding of regular departmental enquiry is a
discretionary power of the disciplinary authority which is to
be exercised by considering the facts of each case and if it
is misused or used arbitrarily, it would be subject to
judicial review.”
(31) The petitioner has not pointed out any Rules
or Regulations which have been violated in
holding the disciplinary proceedings, hence,
the penalty imposed on the petitioner does
not call for any interference.
(32) Hence, the petition, being sans merit,
stands dismissed. RULE discharged. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/
[A. S. SUPEHIA, J]
***
Bhavesh[pps]*
Page 22 of 22
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Wed Oct 11 2017 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 13:49:54 IST 2025
