Judgment:
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1049 of 2009 Jayesh Mehta son of Sri Chhabil Das C. Mehta, resident of Sanghavi Building, Opposite Jain Temple, Jharia, P.O. and P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad. .... Petitioner Versus 1. State Bank of India through Chief General Manager, Local H.O., J.C. Road, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District Patna.
2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local H.O., J.C. Road, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District Patna.
3. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Local H.O., J.C. Road, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District Patna.
4. The Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, State Bank of India, Court Compound, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. G.P.O., District Ranchi.
5. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Digwadih Branch, Digwadih, P.S. Dighwadih, District Dhanbad. .... Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK --- For the Petitioner : M/s. Saurabh Arun & Krishna Shankar, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ----- CAV on 15/10/2015 Pronounced on 04/12/2015 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.
In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing of the order of dismissal from services vide order dated 09.12.2006 passed by General Manager (Network-II) S.B.I., L.H.O, Patna and for quashing the appellate order dated 09.04.2007 and for quashing the review order dated 03.03.2008 and the petitioner has further prayed to reconsider the case and impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support 2 thereof and also for direction upon the respondents to reinstate with all consequential benefits without break in service.
2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk in State Bank of India and subsequently the petitioner has been promoted to the Junior Management Grade Scale-1. While continuing as such at Digwadih Branch, the petitioner was served vide memo dated 16.09.2005 wherein it has been informed that the decision has been taken initially by departmental proceeding against him and alongwith the memo statute of evidences were also enclosed, the allegations contained 21 charges during his incumbency at A.M.Y. Damkara Branch. On receipt of the charges, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations. The matter was enquired by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report and Inquiry Officer, out of 21 charges held, 16 charges to be proved, 3 charges to be partly proved and 2 charges not proved. On receipt of the inquiry report the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services vide order dated 09.12.2006. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.04.2007 rejected the appeal and against the dismissal of the Appellate Order, the petitioner filed a review application which has also been rejected by the Reviewing Authority who has confirmed the order of dismissal of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Order. The petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3 3. Per-contra a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that the entire departmental proceeding has been completed after following rules, regulations and the principles of natural justice, therefore, the writ petition is totally misconceived and the order of punishment has been confirmed by the Appellate as well as the Reviewing Authority by speaking order and thus the writ application is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed in limine. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that while working as Junior Management Grade Scale-1, there were serious allegations against the petitioner who failed to serve the bank with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer and highly prejudicial to the Bank's interest and accordingly the Bank vide order dated 16.09.2005 decided to proceed against the petitioner and by the said Articles of charges were issued to him and as per SBI Officers' Services Rules 68(2)(ii) an inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry officer submitted his report and the petitioner was supplied with copy of the inquiry report so as to as enable him to make submissions/representations against the findings of the inquiry officer. After submissions of the inquiry report and considering the materials on record and after following the Service Rules, the Appointing Authority inflicted the penalty of dismissal in terms of Rule 67(j) of SBI Officers Service Rules vide a speaking order dated 09.12.2006 and the said order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Reviewing Committee. It is further submitted that it is quite apparent that the petitioner has committed serious irregularities and he has not acted with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner 4 unbecoming of a Bank Officer and highly prejudicial to Bank's interest and so the question of reinstatement of such officers does not arise because the petitioner has lost the confidence of the Bank. In Banking Business, the officers and staff of the Bank must have honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and the moment there is loss of confidence, the question of continuing in service does not arise and accordingly, the present order of his dismissal from services is suffering from no irregularity or illegality and moreover, considering the factual position of punishment imposed upon the petitioner, cannot be said to be disproportionate with the charges levelled against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the delinquent employee was already punished for certain serious irregularities committed by him which is apparent from letter dated 21.06.2004 vide Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit and the order of dismissal by General Manager (disciplinary authority) so the plea of the petitioner that he has acted with utmost devotion and diligence and his service record is also unblemished is not correct. It has further been submitted in the counter-affidavit that the statement made in the writ application that there is no financial loss to the Bank is not acceptable. In financial institution, like Bank which is a trustee of public fund, monetary loss cannot be the only criteria to judge the integrity and sincerity of the employee. Tinkering with one's account without his consent/authority is defiance of basic banking norms and principles and as such the delinquency must be denounced and disapproved.
4. Heard Mr. Saurabh Arun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the documents on records. 5 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order of punishment being confirmed by the Appellate as well as Reviewing Authority are illegal, void and without jurisdiction since entire case is based on no evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services being confirmed by Appellate as well as Reviewing Committee as contained in order at Annexures 5 and 6 are disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner, harsh and excessive. Learned counsel further submits that since the respondents have failed to prove the fact that no financial loss has been caused to the Bank and therefore, harsh punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by way of counter- affidavit, the reasons cannot be supplemented which is not in the impugned order moreover, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is non-speaking one. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others as reported in AIR1978SC851in particular, paragraph 8, which is as under:
“8. When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the decisions in the case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 6 as reported in (2010) 11 SCC278in particular, paragraph nos.22 and 23 which are quoted hereinbelow:
“22. As a general rule, an authority entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or empowered to make an order which prejudicially affects the rights of any individual or visits him with civil consequences is duty-bound to act in consonance with the basic rules of natural justice including the one that material sought to be used against the person concerned must be disclosed to him and he should be given an opportunity to explain his position. This unwritten right of hearing is fundamental to a just decision, which forms an integral part of the concept of rule of law. This right has its roots in the notion of fair procedure. It draws the attention of the authority concerned to the imperative necessity of not overlooking the cause which may be shown by the other side before coming to its decision.
23. When it comes to taking of disciplinary action against a delinquent employee, the employer is not only required to make the employee aware of the specific imputations of misconduct but also to disclose the material sought to be used against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of explaining his position or defending himself. If the employer uses some material adverse to the employee about which the latter is not given notice, the final decision gets vitiated on the ground of the violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. Even if there are no statutory rules which regulate holding of disciplinary enquiry against a delinquent employee, the employer is duty-bound to act in consonance with the rules of natural justice—U.P. Warehousing Corpn. v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the decision in the case of Amrendra Narain Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and 3 others as reported in 2004 (2) JLJR235in particular, paragraph no.10, which is quoted hereinbelow:
“10. It therefore appears that both the officers who have passed the impugned orders have not applied their mind and have acted in a manner that is not permissible in Law. It is well known that no person can be punished for a charge that was not a part of the chargesheet or for which he was not proceeded against. The appellate authority, by having taken into consideration additional charges, must therefore, be said to be acted with material irregularity.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the decisions in the case of Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others as 7 reported in (2012) 5 SCC242in paragraph no. 18, which is quoted hereinbelow:
“18. The present case shows dealing with the most serious issues without any seriousness and sincerity. Integrity means soundness of moral principle or character, fidelity, honesty, free from every biasing or corrupting influence or motive and a character of uncorrupted virtue. It is synonymous with probity, purity, uprightness, rectitude, sinlessness and sincerity. The charge of negligence, inadvertence or unintentional acts would not culminate into the case of doubtful integrity.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the decisions in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. A. Masilamani as reported in (2013) 6 SCC530 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the decisions in the case of S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India and another as reported in (2013) 6 SCC602 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State Bank of India has assiduously advanced his argument by submitting that the conduct of the petitioner has resulted in the loss of confidence and taking into account the seriousness of the charges and the findings of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has inflicted the punishment of dismissal from services which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as Reviewing Board, and therefore, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal by the disciplinary authority being confirmed by the Appellate as well as Reviewing Board do not call for any interference Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To butress his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents have referred to judgment in LPA No. 333 of 2013 wherein Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to hold in para 10 (VI), which is quoted hereinbelow: “(VI) when a persons deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is must and 8 unexceptionable and It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. This also applies in the present case as the delinquent employee was working in the State Bank of India as a Branch Manager at the time when misconducts on his part came to light and therefore, punishment imposed upon him by the authority can not be called shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct.” Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the decisions in the case of Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and others Vs. Hoti Lal and another as reported in AIR2003Supreme Court 1462 in paragraph no. 10 which is quoted hereinbelow:
“10. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is must and unexceptionable...“ Learned counsel for the respondents has further referred to the decisions in the case of Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce as reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri.) 612 in paragraph nos. 21 and 22, which are quoted hereinbelow:
21. In Chairman and MD, United Commercial Bank Vs. P.C. Kakkar, this Court said in para 14 at SCC PP. 376-77 as under:
“14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and 9 operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.
22. In the present case the appellant acted beyond his authority in breach of the Bank's regulation. Regulation 3(1) of the Bank's Regulations required that every officer of the Bank at all times takes all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank officer. It ia a case of loss of confidence in the officer by the bank. In such a situation, it would be a futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority removing the officer from service, preceded by an enquiry, and to direct the bank to take back the officer in whom the bank has lost confidence, unless the decision to remove the officer is tainted with mala fides, or in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudice to the officer is made out. No such case is made out in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents has further referred to the decisions in the case of Madhu Saksena and others Vs. Bank of India, Mumbai and others as reported in W.P.(S) No.231 of 2002 in paragraph nos. 5 and 6, which are quoted hereinbelow:
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only Charge No.1 was found proved during enquiry for which an order of reduction of pay by two stages lower in the time scale in terms of regulation for Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 has been imposed upon the petitioner. Charge Nos. 6, 9 and 10 have been partially proved and Charge No.5 and 11 though have not been proved, the disciplinary authority has erroneously substituted his finding differing with the findings in the enquiry report. He further submitted that before passing the order of penalty, the petitioner was not issued any notice and on that ground alone the order of penalty is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the orders passed against the petitioner.
6. The plea of show-cause notice being not issued to the petitioner before the penalty order was passed, is not supported by the documents on record. The enquiry report was submitted on 08.09.1995 and the disciplinary authority issued show-cause notice dated 16.09.1995 attaching a copy of the enquiry report and the substituted findings with respect to Articles of Charge Nos. 5 and 11. The petitioner submitted his representation on 27.10.1995 and the penalty order was passed on 31.07.1996. 10 Learned counsel for the respondents has further referred to the decisions in the case of Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana as reported in (1999) 5 SCC762in paragraph nos. 11 and 13, which are quoted hereinbelow:
“11. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel 1 the Constitution Bench has held: “[T]he High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not.”
13. In the case at hand a perusal of the order dated 5-1-1995 of the disciplinary authority shows that it has taken into consideration the evidence, the finding and the reasons recorded by the enquiry officer and then assigned reasons for taking a view in departure from the one taken by the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority has then recorded its own finding setting out the evidence already available on record in support of the finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority. The finding so recorded by the disciplinary authority was immune from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review available to the court. We are therefore of the opinion that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were not right in setting aside the finding of the disciplinary authority and restoring that of the enquiry officer. The High Court has clearly exceeded the bounds of power of judicial review available to it while exercising writ jurisdiction 11 over a departmental disciplinary enquiry proceeding and therefore the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench cannot be sustained to that extent. The appeal filed by Bank of India deserves to be allowed to that extent.” Learned counsel for the respondents has further referred to the decisions in the case of Regional Manager & Disciplinary Authority Vs. S. Mohammed Gaffar as reported in (2002) 7 SCC168in paragraph no. 10 which is quoted hereinbelow:
“10. The High Court seems to have overlooked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or Appellate Authority is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally interfere with the same or substitute its own opinion and either impose some other punishment or penalty or direct the authority to impose a particular nature or category of punishment of its choice. It is for this reason we cannot accord our approval to the view taken by the High Court in disregard of this settled principle. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge shall stand restored. No costs.” Learned counsel for the respondents has further referred to the decisions in the case of Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, as reported in (2012) 1 SCC442in paragraph nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31which are quoted hereinbelow:
“25. Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. [Vide Air India Corpn. v. V.A. Rebellow Francis Klein & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Workmenand BHEL v. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy].
26. In Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. this Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that, (SCC p. 614, para
9) (i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, he commits an act which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in service/establishment would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer, or would be detrimental to the 12 discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved. (See also Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar v. Bank of India.) 27. In SBI v. Bela Bagchi this Court repelled the contention that even if by the misconduct of the employee the employer does not suffer any financial loss, he can be removed from service in a case of loss of confidence. While deciding the said case, reliance has been placed upon its earlier judgment in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik.
28. An employer is not bound to keep an employee in service with whom relations have reached the point of complete loss of confidence/faith between the two. [Vide Binny Ltd. v. Workmen, Binny Ltd. v. Workmen, Anil Kumar Chakraborty v. Saraswatipur Tea Co. Ltd., Chandu Lal v. Pan American World Airways Inc., Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Pan American World Airways Inc. and Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi.] 29. In Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan, while dealing with the similar issue this Court held that: (SCC p. 90, para 56)“56. …loss of confidence cannot be subjective but there must be objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the employer regarding trustworthiness of the employee and which must be alleged and proved.”
30. In case of theft, the quantum of theft is not important and what is important is the loss of confidence of employer in employee. (Vide A.P. SRTC v. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad.) 31. The instant case requires to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition and keeping in view that judicial review is concerned primarily with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. More so, it is a settled legal proposition that in a case of misconduct of grave nature like corruption or theft, no punishment other than the dismissal may be appropriate. (Vide Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. and U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma.”
7. After hearing the counsels of the respective parties at length and on perusal of the documents on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case to interfere due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:- (i) Admittedly, in the instant case, in pursuance to allegations contained 21 charges held, 16 charges to be proved, 3 charges to be partly proved and 2 charges not proved and considering the allegations of charges and 13 basing on the fact and findings of the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority has passed the punishment of dismissal which has been affirmed by the Appellate as well as Reviewing Committee. This Court is not sitting in appeal against the findings of conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officers since re-appreciation is not permissible in the writ jurisdiction. In the case in hand, in view of the seriousness allegations conducted and committed by the petitioner, the power cannot be applied against the facts of three cogent reasons based on evidence cannot be interfered with as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and Another as reported in (2009) 8 SCC310in paragraph no. 15 which is quoted hereinbelow:
“15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions.” (ii) Moreover, with regard to procedural irregularity that there has been no procedural defect in holding the departmental inquiry and the report of the inquiry officer given to the delinquent employee and adequate opportunity has been extended to the petitioner at every stage before infliction of punishment. (iii) So far as the question of doctrine of proportionality for the quantum of punishment, it is to be seen as to whether the quantum of punishment is shockingly disproportionate to prove misconduct. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and 14 others Vs. Hoti Lal and another reported in AIR2003SC1462all relevant part of the decision is quoted hereunder:-
“10. A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. A party appearing before a Court, as to what it is that the Court is addressing its mind. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up , the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or act in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to the proper...........” The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 612 has been pleased to hold in paragraph nos. 21 and 22, which are quoted hereunder:- 21. In Chairman and MD, United Commercial Bank Vs. P.C. Kakkar, this Court said in para 14 at SCC PP. 376-77 as under:
“14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court. 15 22. In the present case the appellant acted beyond his authority in breach of the Bank's regulation. Regulation 3(1) of the Bank's Regulations required that every officer of the Bank at all times takes all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank officer. It ia a case of loss of confidence in the officer by the bank. In such a situation, it would be a futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority removing the officer from service, preceded by an enquiry, and to direct the bank to take back the officer in whom the bank has lost confidence, unless the decision to remove the officer is tainted with mala fides, or in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudice to the officer is made out. No such case is made out in the present case.
8. On the cumulative effect of aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal from services vide dated 09.12.2006 (Annexure-3), 09.04.2007 (Annexure-5) and dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure-6) being confirmed by the Appointing Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority.
9. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) RKM/- N.A.F.R.