IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 03.03.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.3060 of 2004 And W.P.M.P. No.3600 of 2004
Shri.G.Ranga Ramanujam ... Petitioner
Vs
The Deputy General Manager,
(Disciplinary Authority),
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
No.763, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002. ... Respondent
Prayer:
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order bearing No.C: CDAC: 4968:2004 dated 17.1.2004 imposing punishment of 'Dismissal' from service by the Respondent and quash the same, as violation of principles of natural justice and illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Prabhakaran
for H.Nazirudeen
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy
ORDER
The petitioner Shri.G.Ranga Ramanujam, while working as cashier in the Indian Overseas Bank, he is alleged to have committed serious misconduct of receiving money from the customers but without crediting the same into the account of the account holders, said to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,000/- paid by one of the account holder on two dates namely, 09.08.2000 and 14.09.2000. The account holder, having seen that the Bank has not credited the above said Rs.4,000/- namely Rs.2,000/- paid on 09.08.2000 and another Rs.2,000/- paid on 14.09.2000 into his account, made a complaint.
2.These irregularities were spotted when the account holder Smt.G.Sudha gave her passbook at the Bank for updating her previous entry and only at that point of time, the account holder realised that the installment for the month of August 2000 paid on 09.08.2000 and the installment for the month of September 2000 paid on 14.09.2000 were not credited into the said RD account. Therefore, the account holder preferred a complaint on 07.03.2001 enclosing the copies of counterfoils and also sent a reminder on 20.03.2003 requesting the Branch Manager to credit the amount of Rs.4,000/- into her RD account and, finally, the account holder received Rs.1,64,436/-, being the maturity amount, inclusive of the amount of Rs.4,000/- said to have been misappropriated by the petitioner.
3.Thereafter, the respondent issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to give his explanation for the alleged charges. But the petitioner did not prefer to give an explanation and, thereafter, the respondent Bank ordered for oral enquiry by informing the petitioner to participate therein. Again the petitioner thought fit not to participate in the said enquiry. Only after the enquiry was ordered to be held, the petitioner’s father-in- law wrote a letter dated 17.10.2003 to the disciplinary authority stating that the petitioner Shri.G.Ranga Ramanujam was not traceable. Therefore, he requested the disciplinary authority to adjourn the enquiry for some time. But another letter said to have been written by the petitioner himself, received by the disciplinary authority on 20.10.2003, requested the disciplinary authority that the petitioner was not in a position to move out in view of the threat to his life and, therefore, requested the enquiry to be shifted to Chennai Head office by adjourning the above said enquiry to some other date.
4.Since the respondent was unable to shift the enquiry from the venue at Myladuthurai to Chennai, the enquiry officer proceeded exparte and submitted the enquiry report holding all the charges proved against the petitioner and thereupon a second show cause notice was also issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation therefor. The petitioner finally submitted his explanation. But the allegation as well as the findings of the enquiry officer have not been dealt with by the petitioner anywhere in his explanation nor has he whispered anything about not committing any of the above said irregularities. Therefore, not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority finally thought it fit to pass an order of dismissal and an order of dismissal was passed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
5.The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present writ petition is in view of threat to the life to his client, the petitioner was not able to appear for the enquiry held in Mayiladuthurai on 25.09.2003. Therefore, even before the enquiry officer held the enquiry, a letter was written expressing his personal difficulty for not being able to appear in the said enquiry. However, when further request was made requesting the respondent herein to shift the venue from Mayiladuthurai to Chennai head office, the same has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner lost the only chance of appearing before the enquiry officer to prove his innocence. In his further submission he also submitted that only on the basis of a baseless complaint made by one of the account holders, the charges were framed and finally the enquiry officer, without giving reasonable opportunity, proceeded with the enquiry and a major punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the said impugned order of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate to the nature of charges and on the basis prayed for quashing the impugned order and also further prayed for allowing the present writ petition.
6.In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there was a serious charge leveled against the petitioner by an account holder, viz., Smt.Sudha. The petitioner, on 09.08.2000 as well as on 14.09.2000 having received Rs.2,000/- each from the account holder G.Sudha, after issuing counterfoils to the said account holder G.Sudha, conveniently evaded from making entry in the Bank’s register and crediting the amount, and since the cashier working in the respondent’s Bank is supposed to make double entry in so far as recording the payment of money into the Bank’s account and since the petitioner has not credited the amount received from the customer G.Sudha on two consecutive dates namely on 09.08.2000 and on 14.09.2000 and, thereby, pocketed the above said amount. The account holder Smt.G.Sudha later on made a complaint. The Bank also, after noticing the irregularities committed by the petitioner, has paid out the entire money to Smt.G.Sudha and there upon to find out the truth of the matter, issued show cause notice to the petitioner. When show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to give his explanation, the petitioner did not even care to submit his explanation. Therefore, enquiry was conducted. Even in the said enquiry, the petitioner did not participate. Therefore, the enquiry officer having not received the benefit of a detailed explanation and also not having the benefit of enquiring the petitioner, found him guilty by submitting the enquiry report and, thereafter, the disciplinary authority also not being satisfied with the explanation submitted, at the later stage thought it fit to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submits that this Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and on that basis, prayed for dismissal.
7.No doubt, the petitioner was given opportunities by the respondent. First time show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to give his explanation to the charges levelled against the petitioner to the complaint made by the account holder Smt.G.Sudha. But the petitioner, for the reasons known to him, did not think fit to submit his explanation. Second time, when enquiry was held, the petitioner was also informed to participate in the said enquiry. Again the petitioner for the reasons best known to him did not even prefer to participate in the enquiry but simply wrote a letter requesting the respondent to shift the venue of enquiry from Myladuthurai to Chennai Head office which was found to be impossible for the Bank due to administrative reasons. Accordingly, the enquiry officer’s finding holding the charges proved against the petitioner came to be accepted by the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority also has passed the final order of dismissal from service.
8.Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, this Court in respect of interference with quantum of punishment should be always slow to substitute its own finding. It is well settled legal position that where punishment other than dismissal or discharge was inflicted after a proper enquiry, in which, there was no violation of principles of natural justice no Court or Tribunal shall substitute its own finding by interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, particularly in matters of financial irregularities committed by the cashiers working in the Bank.
9.Useful reference can be had from a judgment of the Apex Court, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and Abother wherein the Apex Court, while dealing with judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution held thus:-
“14……
“21. …The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.
23.The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob V. K.S. Radhakrishnan.”
By taking into account, the legal position as well as the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, this Court does not find any substance in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
pri
To
1.The Deputy General Manager,
(Disciplinary Authority),
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
No.763, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002