Judgment:
ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal by the respondent bank by order dated the 8th of February, 1985.
2. Disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner. Inquiry was held. The inquiry officer submitted his report on the 22nd of June, 1984.
3. On Charge No.1, the inquiry officer gave find that the charge stood partially proved. The charge 'Yes purchased cheque from certain traders for substantial amounts without ascertaining genuineness of transactions.(Details of transactions in excess of Rs.10,000/-Annexure-A).
4. On Charge No.2, the inquiry officer held:-
'Charge No.2: 'You allowed overdrafts to various parties unautho- risedly.(Details of transactions in excess of Rs.10,000/- Annex- ure-B).
Prosecution Case: Shri O.P.Chaudhary (P.W.3) after seeing ledger sheets of M/s.Vikas Tea Company (Exb.P.D.5) and M/s.Keshav Motors (Exb.P.D.3) has deposed that Shri Sharma(OPA) had been granting overdrafts to aforesaid parties unauthorisedly and he (OPA) had not been granted permission to do so. The P.O. has further stated in his written brief that Shri Sharma (OPA) has himself admitted this charge vide his letter dated 13.8.1981 (Exb.P.D.42).
defense version: Although neither Shri Sharma (OPA) nor Shri Umed Singh (D.E.)cross examined the material witness Shri O.P.Chaudhary (P.W.3), who was earlier examined by the Presenting Officer in respect of this charge, the OPA has stated in his written brief that as Shri Chaudhary was not posted at Faridabad Branch as Branch Manager, he was not competent witness to prove the charge. He has further stated that no evidence was led to prove that grant of overdraft by the OPA was questioned by the Branch Manger at any stage. However in his letter dated 13.8.1981 addressed by Shri Sharma (OPA) to the Regional Manager RegionI of D.R.O.(Exb.P.D.42) he has stated as under:-
'That the Extension counter is the Evening one and could not obtain the approval of allowing overdrafts time to time was the result and I request Head Office to debit the parties accounts which could not be debited in the absence of proper assistant will proceed on leave. As your honour will review the position that all the work (posting of vouchers, counting of notes, preparation of drafts etc.) is done by one man it was very difficult for me to regularise these accounts at the appropriate level.'
My evaluations: With the deposition of Shri Chaudhary (PW-3) it has been established that overdrafts were allowed by Shri Sharma (OPA to M/s.Keshav Motors and M/s.Vikas Tea Co. unauthorisedly. Neither the OPA nor his representative cross examined Shri Chaudhary (PW-3) on the point whether or not the overdrafts granted by Shri Sharma (OPA) were unauthorised. Further Shri R.P.Arora (PW- 4) who was then the Branch Manager of Faridabad Branch, during the course of cross examination (Page 28 of enquiry proceeding) has stated that despite the fact that written instructions vide Faridabad Branch letter No.BM/17/165 dated 19.10.1979(Ext.D-1) were issued to the O.P.A. not to grant overdrafts to any party without permission of the Branch Manage, Shri Sharma allowed overdrafts unauthorisedly during the year 1979 and 1980 even after receipt of the aforesaid letter. In the light of above I am inclined to say that this charge stands fully substantiated.'
5. On Charge No.3, the inquiry officer held that it stood proved.
6. On Charge No.4, the inquiry officer did not give any specific finding.
7. On Charge No.5, the inquiry officer held:-
'Charge No.5: 'You passed fictitious credits to parties and transferred funds from one account to another and reversed such entries subsequently with a view to conceal the overdrafts.(Details Annexue`F').' Prosecution case: The Presenting Officer has produced several debit and credit vouchers in the Enquiry Proceedings in support of the facts that the funds were transferred from one account to another account and subsequently such entries were reversed. Shri O.P.Chaudhary (P.W.3) has deposed after perusing most of the vouchers that these neither contain reference to any letter of authority on the basis of which these were passed nor these bear the signature of the account holder thereon confirming the aforesaid transaction. As such according to the P.O. these were fictitious entires. The P.O. has challenged that a few letters of the certain parties now produced by the OPA are not genuine and have been obtained by him (OPA) in order to cover his acts of omission and commission. Shri K.L.Batra (PD-1) in his investigation report dated 12.11.80 (Exb.PD-2) has admitted that the OPA passed fictitious entries from the account of one party to that of another party without any letter of authority from the account holder. He has, however, confessed that neither the Branch Manager nor any other officer at Faridabad Branch told him that they had ever received any complaint from any one of the parties.
defense version: The O.P.A. has produced many letters from sever- al parties during the enquiry proceedings confirming the balance on their accounts and the transaction passed through these accounts during the incumbency of Shri Sharma (OPA) as Officer Incharge, Sewa Samiti Ext.Counter, but none of parties came forward to authenticate the genuineness of these letters and depose in favor of Shri Sharma (OPA). The Presenting Officer raised serious objections and requested the Inquiring Authority not to give any credence to these letters which have been obtained by the OPA only very recently in order to cover his lapses.
My Evaluation: In view of the fact that no person came forward to authenticate the genuineness of the letters produced by the OPA during the enquiry proceedings, the relative debit vouchers do not contain any reference to any letter of authority on the basis of which these debits have been raised, no debit voucher contains signature of the account holder thereon as his confirmation and also taking into consideration the deposition of Shri O.P.Chaudhary (PW-3) and Shri K.L.BAtra (PW-1), I am inclined to say that the charge stands proved.
8. On Charge No.6, the inquiry officer said that it had not been proved.
9. On Charge No.7 which related to shortage of hundred rupees, the petitioner admitted the same.
10. On the basis of this inquiry report, the bank passed the order of removal and the same reads as under:-
'I write with reference to the articles of charge served upon you vide our letter No.DAC/66 dated the 21st January 1983 and subsequent departmental enquiry held by Shri Hardit Singh, Officer SMGS-IVA in the matter. The charges framed and proved against you are summarised as under:-
I. You purchased cheques from traders for substantial amounts (Details of transactions in excess of Rs.10,000/- Annexure 'A').
II. You unauthorisedly allowed overdrafts to various parties (Details of transactions in excess of Rs.10,000/-Annexure 'B').
III. You paid cheques/passed debits relating to certain accounts without posting them/striking balance in the ledger, thus concealing the overdrafts. (Details of transactions Annexure 'C').
IV. You afforded credits to constituents by debit to suspense account in anticipation of realisation of cheques sent in clearing or at outstation branches (Details of transactions in excess of Rs.10,000/- Annexure 'D').
V. You passed fictitious credits to parties and transferred funds from one account to another and reversed such entries subsequently with a view to conceal the overdrafts (Details - Annexure 'E').
VI. A shortage of Rs.100/- in cash balance was detected at the Extension Counter during a surprise verification on the 13th October, 1980.
2. Upon consideration of the whole matter, I have decided that you be removed from the Bank's service with immediate effect in terms of Rule 49(g) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, which I hereby do. A copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiring Authority along with the order passed by me is enclosed. You will not be paid salary and all owlutely for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid to you.'
11. The petitioner applied for review and that was rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal has been passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgments reported in 1991 (4) SLR 102, 'Darshan Singh v. The State of Punjab & Another'; 1991 (2) SLR 578, 'D.C.Aggarwal v. State Bank of India & Others' 1990 (2) SLR 126, 'M.A.Naryana Setty v. Divisional Manager, LIC of India & Others'.
13. I am not able to accede to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sufficient opportunity had been given to the petitioner and the petitioner was found guilty of serious charges and there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioner was acting in the interests of the organisation. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
14. There shall be no orders as to costs.