1. Heard. By this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for to quash and set aside the Award, Inquiry report dated 5.11.2004 passed by the Respondent no.1 Enquiry Authority, Chief Manager, Disciplinary Action Department, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi and the removal order dated 22.12.2004 passed by respondent no.3/Disciplinary authority, Deputy General Manager (Personnel), the order passed in appeal which was rejected by Respondent no. 4/Appellate Authority, General Manager (Personnel) on 14.02.2005, the order in Review application passed by the Respondent no 5, Reviewing authority, Executive Director on 9.05.2005. He has further prayed for to direction to the respondents for reinstatement of the Petitioner with full back wages, arrears and continuity of service with all ancillary benefits .
2. The facts in nutshell are thus: - That the Petitioner was appointed by the Regional Manager, South -Western region of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd, Mumbai as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Oriental Bank of Commerce since 7th July 1979. Having performed his duties at various places, he was promoted as a Head-cashier in the year 1981 and as a Special Assistant in the year 1985 and further as a Scale-1 Officer in the Junior Management. He had also worked as a Branch Manager at Akola. On 3.08.1999 he had received the letter dated 3.08.1999 to appear for the interview on 16.08.1999 for the promotional scale II Officer. The Petitioner had, by representation, protested as to why the Bank did not adopt the sealed cover procedure to issue such confidential letter. While the Petitioner was working as an Officer-I, a complaint was lodged on 15.01.1998 at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. It was alleged that, on 9.1.1998, Cashier in the Receipt department namely Shri Shailendra Jethe showed some notes to the Chief manager of the Kingsway Branch (First informant) suspecting them as fake currency notes claiming that they were given by Shri Anandrao Bhende, Peon working in the Cash Department, for exchange. The Chief Manager had called two Officials in the Branch namely Shri Prakash Diwale and Shri Rajendra Damadu to verify those notes; they also suspected genuineness of those notes, but could not form any definite opinion. An Employee by name Shri Ganesh Narnavare came with an Employee of KCT Company (Bank customer) complaining that he had received 18 similar notes through Shri Bhagwan Bhakre, the Cashier. Peon Anandrao Bhende came in the Cabin and informed the said Officer about similar notes issued by Shri Bhakre to various other Customers. At the instance of Chief Manager, an Officer in the Bank collected 144 notes from the cabin of Shri Bhakre. The Chief Manager had questioned Shri Bhakre as to how he came in possession of fake currency notes. According to Shri Bhakre, he had received those notes amounting to Rs. 21,000/- from the Petitioner. On 9.1.1998, Rs 28,000/- in two vouchers, each in the sum of Rs 14,000/-, were deposited by Shri Bhagwan Bhakre for issuance of the term deposit receipt under his signature. The said amount included the sum of Rs. 21,000/- which were the doubtful currency notes along with cash withdrawal of Rs. 7000/- from his Savings Bank Account. The complainant Officer Shri David had asked Shri Bhakre about the remaining 66 unaccounted doubtful currency notes. Shri Bhakre had informed him about payments made by him to various parties. Shri Bhakre was asked to collect the doubtful currency notes from the parties concerned. On that night, at about 8.30. p.m., Shri Bhagwan Bhakre had brought 66 currency notes and handed them over to the complainant Officer. Shri.Bhagwan Bhakre on or about 15.01.1998 stated that he had collected 16 notes from Cash-peon Shri Bhende and 50 notes from Shri Uike, customer having Savings Bank account with the Bank. The Complainant had contacted Shri P. K. Malhotra, AGM, Regional Office, Mumbai who had deputed Shri.S.C. Pande, Deputy Chief Manager for Inspection on 14.01.1998. Shri. Pande, upon inspection, had declared that 210 notes were fake and reported to police accordingly on 15.01.1998 and handed over fake currency notes to the Police. But Statement of the Petitioner was not recorded. Statements of five Officials were recorded on 15.1.1998. It is specifically stated in the complaint that some unknown persons with or without complicity of the Bank staff may be responsible for the occurrence of circulation of fake notes. The Complainant had produced the alleged complaint dated 9.1.1998 made by Shri Bhagwan Bhakre in which he attributed role to the Petitioner that on 9.1.1998 the Petitioner gave him sum of Rs. 21,000/- as loan to help Shri.Bhagwan Bhakre to actuate limit of his overdraft account. Two CDR vouchers of Rs 14,000/- each were prepared and were credited. When Bhagwan Bhakre started disbursing the amount to the customer, one of the colleagues in the Bank suspected that the notes disbursed by him might be forged. Bhagwan Bhakre had alleged that, on 7.1.1998, when the Petitioner had, along with Shri Bhende, peon visited the house of Shri.Bhakre, they had gone to the house of Shri.Uike. The Petitioner gave Rs 5000/- to Uike and Rs.300 /- to his Son. On 9.1.1998, he had disbursed some currency notes in the denomination of Rs 100/-, mixing them with some old currency notes. Shri Bhagwan Bhakre had requested the Chief Manager to hold inquiry.
3. The Petitioner avers that, by statement dated 15.1.1998, Shri Bhagwan Bhakre stated that he had borrowed sum of Rs 21,000/- from the Petitioner and alleged that when he started disbursing the amounts to the customers, one of his colleagues expressed suspicion before him that notes in the denomination of Rs 100/- might be forged. Shri Bhakre had attributed to the Petitioner that he gave a note in the denomination of Rs 100/- to the Sister of Shri Bhende while she was hospitalized to meet her expenses. Statement of Shri Anand Bhende was also recorded, in which he stated that the Petitioner had given a sum of Rs. 5500/- in presence of the Armed Guard Mahadev. Out of that amount, Mahadev was paid a sum of Rs. 500/-, for which the Armed guard Mahadev gave a Cheque drawn in favour of the Petitioner for Rs.500/-. The Petitioner has disputed genuineness of the statement made against him.
4. It is alleged that 236 currency notes remitted with the Bank slip of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd. were found fake pursuant to the RBI verification. Shri R.V.Damadu and Shri P.K.Diwale gave joint statement dated 15.1.1998 about verification of the currency notes. The respondent no.3 had placed the Petitioner under Suspension with effect from 17.1.1998 on the ground that the Petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the complaint proceedings lodged under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. The suspension order was received by the Petitioner on 28.1.1998. The Petitioner had made representation on 9.9.1999 against the suspension. Respondent no.3 had issued Show cause notice dated 24.9.1999 alleging that the Petitioner was actively involved in circulation of fake currency notes while working as an Officer at the Kingsway Branch, Nagpur. It was alleged that the Petitioner gave 210 notes in the denomination of Rs 100/- on 9.1.1998, aggregating Rs 21000/- as a loan to Shri Bhagwan Bhakre, Head cashier who deposited the same along with cash of Rs 7000/- for the purpose of drawing two CFRs of Rs 14000/- each. It was further alleged that the Petitioner also gave 16 notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- to Shri Anand Bhende, Cash- peon from the Bank and petitioner had also given 55 notes of the denomination of Rs 100/- for onward payment of Rs. 5000/- to Shri B.V.Uike, a Bank customer and Rs 500/- to one Shri Mahadev Badaria, Armed Guard at the Branch. It is alleged that those notes were found fake and the Petitioner was called upon to explain as to why a disciplinary action against him for unlawful/unauthorized act be not initiated against him .The Petitioner had called upon the Disciplinary authority to supply copies of all the relevant documents by his letter dated 3.10.1999. Meanwhile the petitioner filed Writ Petition no 2001 of 1999. The Deputy General Manager of the Bank, by letter dated 26.10.1999, asked the Petitioner to submit reply without supplying the copies of the documents on the ground that the Petitioner will receive the copies of the documents asked for, once the Charge-sheet is filed in the case. The Petitioner had, by letter dated 3.11.1999, sought time of one month for to give reply and had submitted the reply on 22.11.1999 to the show cause notice. Charge sheet dated 20.11.1999 was issued by the Disciplinary authority to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had, by letter dated 6.12.1999, asked the Disciplinary Authority to supply copies of 13 documents listed along with the Charge-sheet. The petitioner had denied all the accusations made against him. The petitioner alleged that Head Cashier Bhakre, Guard and cash- Peon were hand in glove with each other and had a game plan to throw blame on the Petitioner. He also denied connection with Shri Uike stating that Shri Bhende, cash-Peon had introduced Shri Uike for the purpose of opening the Savings Bank account. The General Manager (Personnel ) Shri V. K. Gupta had, by letter date 17.1.2000, informed the Petitioner that the Bank had decided to hold disciplinary inquiry against the Petitioner and that AGM Shri P. K. Malhotra was appointed as Enquiry Authority in the matter. Accordingly, Shri.Malhotra had informed the Petitioner that he would be holding the inquiry at Nagpur on 24.2 2000 and the Petitioner was asked to remain present. Petitioner made grievance that copies of the documents were not supplied to the Petitioner. Petitioner had then filed Writ Petition No. 638 of 2000 challenging the Inquiry proceeding and sought interim stay of the departmental inquiry proceedings which was granted on 23.2.2000. Later, on 20.9.2001, the inquiry Authority Mr.A.K.Goel had informed the Petitioner that the inquiry shall be conducted on 5.10.2001. Petitioner had appeared before the inquiry Authority protesting by letter dated 29.9.2001 that he had not received notice intimating change of the enquiry Authority and copies of the documents after receipt of the show cause notice and even after receipt of charge sheet. Petitioner also sought copies of additional documents. On 5.10 2001, the Petitioner participated in the inquiry and demanded the copies of all the relevant documents. Petitioner was given bunch of documents Sr. No. A to L. Proceeding were adjourned to 18.10.2001 and to 7.11.2001. The Petitioner did not participate; hence, the inquiry was adjourned to 22.11.2001. The Petitioner had also complained of alleged alteration of the page in the inquiry proceeding and made a police report about it. He also alleged that Inquiry Officer had threatened him for the reason of the police report lodged against the Inquiry Officer. The Petitioner had lodged Criminal Complaint Case Nos. 352 of 2002 and 78 of 2002 under Sections 294, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code against Shri.Goel and under Sections 465 and 468 IPC against Shri Damadu respectively and the process was issued. Thus ,inquiry proceedings was kept in abeyance till the same was resumed and was fixed again on 14.2.2002. The Petitioner appeared and produced medical certificate to seek adjournment on the ground of sickness. On 13.3.2002, the inquiry was fixed at the Regional Office at Mumbai. On 12.3.2002, the Petitioner sought adjournment protesting the change of venue to Mumbai. The inquiry Authority had recorded that the Petitioner was avoiding the inquiry proceeding by producing the medical certificates etc. for to get adjournments. The Petitioner sent his representations dated 11.6.2002, 20.6.2002, and 8.7.2002 and sought adjournments. He also sent a Fax dated 19.7.2002 to get adjournment again. Then the Inquiry officer, by letter dated 22.7.2002, informed the Petitioner that if the Petitioner fails to appear in the enquiry proceeding, the same shall proceed ex-parte against the Petitioner on 8.8.2002 at Branch office at Nagpur. On 8.8.2002, the Petitioner attended and again sought adjournment on the ground that he was not supplied with the relevant documents. The proceeding was again adjourned to 21.8.2002. The Petitioner did not attend on the pretext of festival of Rakshabandhan. The Inquiry Authority observed that the Petitioner did not co-operate and continued to cause delay in the inquiry proceedings and adjourned the proceedings to 5.9.2002. Interim stay was granted by the High Court on 29.8.2002; thus, the Inquiry proceeding was again kept in abeyance till the stay order was vacated on 29.1.2004. Thereafter, on 16.3.2004, the Disciplinary Authority had recorded some evidence in the inquiry proceedings. The Proceedings was fixed on 1.5.2004 and was again adjourned to 24.5.2004. The Petitioner was finally removed from the service on 22.12.2004. In January 2005, the Petitioner received the letter of Removal from the Bank. The Bank had deducted the sum of Rs.4000/- from the suspension allowance payable to the Petitioner for the month of December 2004.
5. The Petitioner submitted that the order of removal of the Petitioner was passed in biased manner. It is bad in law, in violation of the principles of natural Justice and the inquiry was conducted in the arbitrary and malicious manner. The Disciplinary Authority had recorded evidence on 16.3.2004 on the ground that the Petitioner did not attend the inquiry proceedings deliberately and further on the ground that although the proceedings were adjourned for the purpose of cross-examination on 31.3.2004, the Petitioner produced fake medical certificate and failed to appear for cross-examination. The Disciplinary Authority relied upon the evidence of the statements made by Shri.Bhagwan Bhakre and held that the charge was proved against the Petitioner and passed a reasoned order for removal of the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner had challenged the order of removal passed in the inquiry proceedings by Appeal which was dismissed on 14.2.2005. The Petitioner then preferred a Review Application which was also rejected on 9.5.2005. According to the Petitioner, the Officer who was appointed as an Appellate Authority, had initiated the inquiry proceedings and acted against the Petitioner as Disciplinary Authority and this was contrary to Officer's Service Regulations, 1982. The Sessions Case against the Petitioner and his other colleagues in the Bank was committed to the Sessions Court at Nagpur. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who heard and decided Sessions Trial No.365 of 2000 for the offences punishable under section 489-A, 489-B 489-C of the Indian Penal Code had, by judgment and order dated 10.05.2007, acquitted the Petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of removal from Service needs to be set aside and quashed as the Departmental Inquiry was held on the same facts. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that he had unnecessarily suffered for a period of 7 years and 9 months along with his family due to his wrongful suspension and full stoppage of his salary payments with effect from 22.12.2004. Plethora of rulings were cited to canvass the principle that sufficient opportunity of hearing is required to be granted in the interest of justice. Petitioner has pressed into service the following rulings:
(1) Kashinath Dikshjta v. Union of India reported in 1986 (3) SCALE 909.
(2) Sunarlal Dhanraj Kasliwal v. Karmaveer Kakasaheb Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, reported in 1995 (2) Bom C.R. 253.
(3) M.L.L. Kumar v. The Divisional Manager, APSRTC and anr, W.P . No. 9929 of 1986, nd decided on 22 June 1989 (Andhra Pradesh).
(4)State of UP v. Sheo Shankarreported in 2006 (3) SCC 276.
(5) Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P. Reported in 1983 (2) SCC 442.
(6) Vasant Narayan damle v. The Honourable Chief Justice and Ors. reported in 2002 II CLR 800.
(7)Union of India v. Naman Singhreported in 2008 (4) SCC 1.
(8)G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat andanr. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446
(9)M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679.
(10) Jagdamba Prasad v. State of UP reported in 2000 (7) SCC 90.
(11) Divisional Forest Officer and ors v. Madhusudhan Rao reported in 2008 (3) SCC 469, and
(12)State of AP v. N. Radhakishanreported in 1998 (4) SCC 154.
6. We need not advert to each and every ruling cited above as the principles of natural justice as well as for scope of judicial review in such cases are well settled. It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to meet the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted. The Disciplinary authority is bound to inquire into the truth of the imputations made as to misconduct of the employee. We are of the opinion that the Inquiry Authority is required to frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of allegations and statements of imputations. On the basis of the principle of 'Audi alteram partem' a delinquent must have a fair opportunity of hearing so as to answer the imputations/accusations against him after knowing as to what case he has to meet. Procedural fairness would include right to an oral hearing and right of an employee to submit legal representation/written statement if filed within reasonable time. Presenting Officer is expected to do the needful for to prosecute the charge, i.e. by filing a list of documents, a list of witnesses. If employee does not plead guilty to the charge then the Presenting Officer is expected to follow the stage of discovery and production of documents with a view to curtail length and duration of the inquiry proceeding. Much time can be saved if other side is called upon to admit or deny genuineness of the documents listed. The Presenting Officer may then lead oral and documentary evidence to support the charge. Domestic Tribunal can, unlike the Court, obtain all informations, material for to decide the points for determination under the inquiry, from all sources and through all channels without being fettered by the technical rules of procedure governing the Courts. It is also legitimate expectation of the person facing a departmental inquiry that a reasoned decision would be given and a copy of the inquiry report shall be furnished to the delinquent employee found guilty of misconduct. This is based on the principle that justice shall not only be done but must be manifestly seen to have been done. In the same manner, in our opinion, if misconduct such as misappropriation or in the nature of criminal breach of trust stands proved, then by reason of gravity of the same, it will be neither proper nor fair for the Court to substitute the finding and loss of confidence of the Employer with that of its own by allowing the reinstatement by cancelling or by materially altering the punishment ordered to be imposed as a result of Departmental inquiry.
7. While we have heard the Petitioner patiently, we also thought it necessary in the interest of justice to request learned Advocate Smt. Bharati Dangre whom we had appointed by order dated 21.02.2011 as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Learned Advocate Smt. Dangare strenuously contended that the Inquiry Authority recorded findings which were not based upon admissible evidence and secondly submitted that since the petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court of all the charges framed against him on the same set of facts, the order of removal is harsh and ought to be set aside. To support her submissions, she invited our attention to the ruling in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in (1999)3 SCC 679, The Apex Court, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, observed specially that, having regard to the fact that the appellant before the Apex Court was undergoing the agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court in 1987, Hon'ble Supreme Court decided not to direct any fresh departmental inquiry to be instituted against him on the same set of facts. Smt.Bharati Dangare also placed reliance upon the ruling inG. M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat &another;, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129, wherein the Apex Court appears to have expressed its opinion that if facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings are the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed to get the order of dismissal set aside.
8. Opposing the submissions on behalf of the respondents, it is contended by Learned Advocate Shri.Parchure that fact finding inquiry revealed it clearly that the charge framed against the Petitioner was established upon preponderance of probabilities and there need not be any re-assessment of the factual situation at this stage notwithstanding the fact of acquittal by the Criminal Court as, according to him, the onus of proof required in either cases is different. He also submitted that, in the facts and circumstances, when an employee has lost confidence of the employer Bank as to his trustworthiness or reliability, his reinstatement ought not to be ordered. It is contended that, continuance of such an employee in banking service, who has lost confidence of his employer, would create apprehension in the mind of the management of the Employer Bank and it would be embarrassing and inconvenient for the employer Bank if reinstatement of such an employee is ordered in the facts and circumstances. Shri.Parchure contended that a serious charge was established against the Petitioner in the departmental inquiry proceedings. He submitted that it was legally permissible for the Employer Bank to proceed against any Bank employee whose conduct was contrary to what was expected of a reasonably prudent person placed in his position notwithstanding his acquittal in a Criminal case.
9. While hearing these submissions, we can not overlook the fact that the nature of duties which a bank employee is expected to dis- charge involves full faith, confidence and responsibility. Non-fulfillment thereof may not only cause damage to the Employer, but may also lose confidence of the employer to continue such employee in the employ- ment. It is expected that every employee in the bank should strive to see that banking operation or services are rendered with full trust and confidence in the best interest of the system. Any conduct that damages or defeats or tends to defeat the trust and confidence of the employer Bank reposed on the bank employee is required to be viewed seriously because any sympathy or leniency in such case would be uncalled for. A Bank is expected to maintain transparency of relations with its cus- tomers. It is the integrity which matters most in the case of Bank em- ployee and for that matter in case of any service holder. The petitioner being a Bank employee was necessarily entrusted with the duty of trust and confidence. The Bank necessarily had to repose confidence in him. From the charges leveled against the petitioner, it appears that if neces- sary evidence is led in support of it, the misconduct may be established that the petitioner in connivance with some other Bank employees had a design to defraud the Bank for his own personal gains. It is immateri- al as to whether the Bank has suffered any financial loss or not. It is the conduct of the delinquent which matters most. If the misconduct estab- lished is of such a nature that as a result the Bank has lost confidence in the employee, no fault may be found with it on that count. Reference may be made to the ruling inKanhaiyalal Agrawal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. andors, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3645 in this regard. In Para 12, it is observed thus:- "What must be pleaded and proved to invoke the aforesaid principle is that
i) the workman is holding a position of trust and confidence;
ii) by abusing such position, he commits acts which results in forfeiting the same; and
iii) to continue him in service would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. All these three aspects must be present to refuse reinstatement on ground of loss of confidence. 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. Else, the right of reinstatement ordinarily available to the employee will be lost." In General Manager (P) Punjab And Sindh Bank & Ors. vs. Daya Singh, (2010) 11 SCC 233, it was held in Para 26 that a Bank employee has to exercise a higher degree of honesty and integrity. He is concerned with the deposits of the customers of the Bank and he can not permit the deposits to be tinkered in any manner.
10. Here, in the instant case, the number of forged notes involved appears to be in dispute. 100 Notes in a rubber band i.e. one bundle was produced by Cashier Shri.Bhakare before Shri.David. He then had informed that some more notes were lying in his cabin. Shri.Divale and Shri Damdu both officers of Bank had then recovered 44 more notes. Thus, total 144 notes were recovered on 09.01.1998 only. However, because of story of Bhakare that loan of Rs. 21, 000/- was advanced to him by the petitioner in the Morning, all 210 notes were treated as counterfeit. The cashier Shri Bhakare had stated that remaining notes were distributed to customers while honoring their request for withdrawal. Shri.Bhakare was instructed to retrieve those notes. He has, late, in the evening, handed over 66 notes to Shri.David; thus, making total to 210 notes i.e. representing loan of Rs. 21,000/-. There, 66 notes are recovered by him from two persons. 16 notes were given by Cash Peon Shri Bhende. 50 Notes were given by one Contractor Shri Uke. Both these persons have not withdrawn any amount on 09.01.1998. Therefore, these notes are not out of 210 notes allegedly given by the petitioner to Shri Bhakare. Thus, notes, therefore, are over and above 210 notes suspected to be counterfeit. The records also show that, in remittance with Reserve Bank of India, 26 notes of Rs.100/- denomination were found counterfeit. The said 26 notes appear to be over and above 210 notes already mentioned above. Thus, total numbers of notes appear to be 236 as per this story. It is to be noted that the petitioner also has pleaded in the petition about total number of notes to be 236. But 16 Notes given by Cash to Peon Shri Bhende are again alleged to be out of 20 notes given to him as loan by the petitioner. Similarly, on 09.01.1998, employee of K.T.C. Company had expressed doubt about 18 notes received by him in withdrawal and those notes were also shown to Shri David. There, 18 notes were directed to be replaced, but it is not clear whether these 18 notes have been actually replaced or not. In other words, whether these 18 notes were included in 44 notes retrieved from cabin of Bhakare by Diwale and Damadu. If these 44 notes consisted of 26 notes sent by Reserve Bank of India and 18 notes returned back by the employee of K.C.T. Company, the question arise as to whether these 44 notes were later on retrieved from the cabin of Shri Bhakare or not? This is not very clear. If Bhakare could then take bundle of Rs. 100 notes to Shri David, he was aware that 26 notes received back from R.B.I. were counterfeit and 18 notes had to be replaced. Therefore, he could have handed over all 144 notes to Shri David. In so far as Shri Uike is concerned, statements on record reveal that the petitioner had on earlier date advanced loan of Rs.5,000/- to Shri Bhende, Cash Peon. Thereafter, they had gone to residence of Shri.Uike and Shri.Uike complained of his financial stringency. The petitioner then asked Shri.Bhende to give an amount of Rs.5,000/- with him to Shri Uike. Accordingly, Shri Bhende gave that amount to Shri Uike. It is also his story that three notes of Rs.100/- denomination were given by the petitioner to the son of Shri Uike. Thereafter, Shri Bhende, Shri Uike and the petitioner proceeded to some hospital where the petitioner asked Shri.Uike to give one note of Rs.100/- to the mother of Shri.Bhende. Thus, Shri Uike is then only left with only 46 or 49 notes. The record shows that 50 notes given by him to Shri Bhakare included notes given to his son by the petitioner. It is, therefore, obvious that 66 notes produced by Shri.Bhakare to complete the number of 210 notes are not out of 210 notes allegedly received by him from the petitioner. Resultantly, 66 notes need to be counted over and above 210 notes. Thus, 66 notes are required to be added either to 210 notes or 236 notes.
11. In Sessions trial for counterfeit currency against the petitioner, Shri.Bhakare and Shri.Bhende, Investigating Officer has deposed that vide seizure Panchnama Ex. 161, they had recovered 30 notes of Rs.100/- denomination each from one Bhaitala. The Sessions Court has not accepted this seizure as statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was not found to be properly recorded. Whether this evidence is admissible in departmental enquiry or not is a different question. If it is admissible, then these 30 notes may be required to be added to above total.
12. Shri Bhende has stated that, on the earlier date, he had received total loan of Rs.5,500/- from the petitioner in Bank premises only. He then give Rs.500/- to one Peon Mahadeo as per instructions of the petitioner and Mahadeo then gave a cheque of Rs.500/- to the petitioner drawn on his own Saving Bank accounts.
13. Thus, in the departmental inquiry, Mahadeo could have been examined, fate of cheque given by him to the petitioner could have been brought on record, Uike could have been examined and also mother of Bhende could have been examined. In fact, it ought to have been a joint departmental enquiry against all the Bank employees concerned.
14. A perusal of the judgment dated 10.05.2007 delivered by 8th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial Case No.365 of 2000, particularly in Para 27 therein shows that present petitioner has produced in that trial a document at Ex. 176/8 which is statement of cash on 09.01.1998 and it shows that an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was sent for remittance in the Reserve Bank of India which was returned by the Reserve Bank of India. It is also recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that, on that date, an amount of Rs.32,29,555/- was taken out from the safe to the Cashier's cabin and to it an amount of Rs.28,000/- was added. The said amount was received by cash transfer from accused No.3. The Court then has recorded that total, therefore, comes to Rs.33,29,555/-. The finding is obviously erroneous. The petitioner has in Para 13 of his writ petition alleged that 236 currency fake notes were found the in Reserve Bank of India remittance. It is contended in Para 13 that, at the Reserve Bank of India, 236 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination with slip of Oriental Bank of Commerce along with slips of other 2 - 3 Banks were found fake. Shri Bhende, Cash Peon present in Reserve Bank of India was then called upon and he was apprised of the fact. He was asked to exchange those notes and he disclosed that he was having cash of Rs. 2,000/- only for exchange purposes; hence, he was sent back to bring 236 notes for replacement. Shri Bhende then contacted Shri.David and then Shri.David exchanged those notes. This fact can also be verified from communication dated 23.04.1998 sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch to the Additional Director General of Police, CID at Pune, which says that total 236 notes worth Rs.23,600/- as per list enclosed were detected at Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur, during examination of remittance. If this story is proved, entire genesis of the Bank's contention that total 210 notes were detected during working hours and thereafter, in the night of 09.01.1998, may be rendered incorrect. It is to be noted that 66 notes out of these 210 notes are given by Shri Bhakare, Cashier to Shri.David in the night, at about 8.30 P.M., on 09.01.1998. The question, therefore, is whether these 210 notes are the same which were detected in the Reserve Bank of India or whether these notes are different. If 236 notes were exchanged by Shri.David as contended by the petitioner, it is apparent that before closure of working hours on 09.01.1998, Bank had in its custody 236 counterfeit notes. We may also note that Shri.Bhakare has in his communication sent to the Chief Manager on 15.01.1998 stated that the sum Rs.16,100/- was found to be in fake notes. Under these circumstances, we can not consider this case as a case of an honourable acquittal of the Petitioner on the same set of facts as in the Departmental inquiry held against him. Therefore, the rulings pressed into service on his behalf can not be of any assistance to him.
15. It is pertinent to note that the Deputy General Manager (Per)/Disciplinary Authority who held inquiry against the Petitioner stated that the charged Officer (Petitioner) was adopting dilatory tactics and was avoiding to participate in the inquiry proceedings, and therefore, the same was closed on 12.10.2004. The Authority had placed reliance upon the statement made by Shri.Bhagwan Bhakre to the Chief Manager of the Branch Office and statements made by Shri.Narnavare, Shri.Anandrao Bhende and found that the Petitioner had violated the Regulation 3(1) of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer employees (Discipline and Appeal ) Regulations, 1982 and committed misconduct. The charge which the Petitioner faced was that he had handed over fake currency notes of Rs 100/- denomination to Shri Bhagwan Bhakre, Head Cashier as hand loan. Shri Bhakre had deposited that amount into the Bank for issuance of two deposit receipts of Rs. 14000/- each in his name. Those 210 notes in the denomination of Rs 100/- were found fake upon close scrutiny. The Authority did not find any mitigating circumstances to reduce the gravity of the Charge that the Petitioner had misused his official position for promoting his nefarious activity. By letter dated 22.12.2004, it was informed to the Petitioner that removal from service shall not be disqualification for future employment.
16. In the ruling inState of Rajasthan vs. B. K. Meena and othersreported in (1996) 6 SCC 417, the Apex Court observed in Para 14 thus-"-------- disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary Proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanor should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against thestay
of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasize some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above.
17. We are quite aware of the fact that it is not always that all the disciplinary proceedings are based upon true charges; some of them may be unfounded. It may also be that in some cases, charges are leveled with oblique motives. But these possibilities do not detract from the desirability of early conclusion of these proceedings. Indeed, in such cases, it is all the more in the interest of the charged officer that the proceeding are expeditiously concluded. Delay in such cases really works against him.
18. The question of delay in initiating action assumes importance in this background. The police complaint is filed by Bank on 15.01.1998 and charge sheet has been served upon the present petitioner on 20.11.1999. It is obvious that, in this situation, when Bank has initiated enquiry against Shri.Bhakare and Shri.Bhende also, enquiry needed to be joint so as to bring truth on record. It is to be also noted that charge against the present petitioner is that he indulged in circulation of fake notes; joint inquiry was, therefore, essential and in it evidence of Shri Uike, Contractor, Shri Mahadeo and mother of Shri Bhende would have been of considerable importance to throw light on truth. The alleged cheque given by Shri Mahadeo to the petitioner against cash receipts of Rs.500/- would also have been utilized in it. The seizure by Investigating Officer at Ex. 161 in Sessions Trial of alleged 30 notes claimed to have been given by the petitioner to one Bhaitala could have also assisted the cause of either respondent Bank or then the petitioner. In view of this position, we find that the facts cannot be said to have been crystallized so as to enable this Court to proceed further on its strength.
19. Here, it also needs to be pointed out that the petitioner did not cross examine any of the prosecution witnesses; on the contrary, he avoided to participate in the Departmental Enquiry. At one stage, he claimed Shri.David as his defence representative to defend him in Departmental Enquiry. He had filed Writ Petition No. 2001 of 1999 and thereafter Writ Petition No. 638 of 2000 before this Court to stop Departmental Enquiry. He then also approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No. 4943 of 2004. The records also show that he filed Criminal Complaint Nos. 352 of 2002 and 78 of 2002 and the Magistrate has issued process under Sections 294, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against Shri Goyal (Enquiry Officer) and under Sections 465 of 468 of IPC against Shri Damadu (Presenting Officer) on 18.07.2005.
20. We do not wish to find out here whether the petitioner was or was not justified in taking all these steps. The fact remains that he did not participate in the Departmental Enquiry. In this situation, it is apparent that, by not serving upon the petitioner a copy of Enquiry Report, a serious prejudice is caused to him, bearing in mind the above circumstances in the background. Had he been served with a copy of Enquiry Report and proper show cause notice with it, he would have then received proper opportunity to throw light upon his conduct and also upon the mode and manner in which Departmental Enquiry was taken up. It appears that he had twice submitted Medical Certificates issued by the Competent Board declaring him unfit for a period of two months each. However, thereafter he has not taken any pains to find out further progress or dates of Departmental Enquiry. During arguments, he blamed his employer and contended that his employer manipulated postal authorities and procured false documents to show that dates of Departmental Enquiry were communicated to the petitioner. We have also found that at one stage, he had received communication on his Mobile from the Bank. In this situation, it is clear that the petitioner can raise all these contentions while submitting his reply to show cause notice and while commenting upon the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
21. In State of Punjab vs. Premsarup [(2008)12 SCC 522], it is held that there is no bar against the disciplinary proceedings even after the acquittal in aCriminal Case. In Director General, RPF and Others v. Ch. Sai Babu[(2003) 4 SCC 331], it is observed thus - "6. ....Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment in which the delinquent person concerned works"
22. Thus, If an employee has been acquitted of a criminal charge, the same by itself would not be a ground not to initiate a departmental proceeding against him or to drop the same in the event an order of acquittal is passed. Therefore, as a normal rule, this court would not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to alter major punishment of Removal from service imposed as result of the inquiry proceedings, more so when it is further confirmed in appeal and Review application was also rejected. But by way of an exception and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case considering the contentions raised before us we feel that the ends of justice shall be met if the Petitioner is granted an opportunity of hearing to meet the serious charge against him and to substantiate his contentions raised in the Petition for to claim the relief of reinstatement etc. The Presenting officer on behalf of the Employer Bank may also have an opportunity to raise a plea of loss of confidence and to substantiate it. The disciplinary authority, being fact-finding authority has exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. The inquiry authority is invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. It can also magnanimously consider the contentions in defence to exonerate the contesting officer if Regulations permit accordingly. The High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, would not normally substitute its own conclusion on the penalty/punishment and substitute the same, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is manifestly unjust, perverse or if it suffers from material procedural irregularity or if it is such that would shock the conscience of the Court, the High Court may under the circumstances with a view to do complete justice , appropriately mould the relief, directing the disciplinary authority to hear afresh and reconsider the penalty imposed, and to pass an order according to law.
23. We have treated this as an exceptional case because we have noticed some inherent defects in material on the record that an opportunity to meet the findings of the Enquiry Officer has not been extended to the petitioner. We need to appreciate and address an important question as to whether non-supply of Enquiry report has resulted in prejudice to the petitioner. Wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge thereafter. This is so in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofUnion of India & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan,reported at AIR 1991 SC 471 as also judgment in the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, reported at (1993) 4 SCC 727, the rulings prima facie appear to have been breached in this case. In our opinion, the facts as in the instant case, can be said to have been crystallized only if proper procedure is followed and the petitioner is granted an opportunity to meet the findings recorded against him by the Enquiry Officer. The ends of justice shall be met if the Petitioner is granted an opportunity to meet the serious charge against him and to substantiate his contentions raised in the Petition for claiming the relief of reinstatement etc.
24. It also needs to be noted that the petitioner has after 16.04.2000 made a grievance about the mode and manner in which Departmental Enquiry was conducted. He has pointed out that in last proceedings then conducted on 16.04.2002 he had participated under protest. The grievance made by him in this communication is about not showing him original documents, not framing of proper charge sheet, changing of witnesses twice by the management, not supplying him copy of statement of witnesses, incorrect approach of Enquiry Officer. He claimed supply of all documents with proper charge sheet and time of 30 days to study it and to furnish proper written statement in defence. He has further stated that he was constrained to keep mum because of Enquiry Officer happens to be his superior. He has also pointed out that witnesses included in the list supplied to him were not relevant for proving charges. He has sought information about vigilance angle and consultation with C.V.C. about his disciplinary proceedings. He also has sought permission to engage legal practitioner to defend him. In the background of various rather inconsistent facts noticed by us above, we do not wish to record any finding on these grievances. The grievance made by him and facts noted above are sufficient to show prejudice caused to him because of non supply of Enquiry Report.
25. In the case ofManaging Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar,reported at AIR 1994 SC 1074, the Hon'ble Apex Court through its Constitutional Bench has explained that mere non supply of Enquiry Report is not sufficient to vitiate enquiry unless it is accompanied by proof of prejudice. This view is recently followed in the judgment in the case of Sarv U.P. Gramin Bank vs. Manoj Kumar Sinha, reported at AIR 2010 SC 2491. We find that the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer ought to have been communicated to the petitioner so as to enable him to make appropriate defence in relation to findings reached therein and then obliging Disciplinary authority to record its findings on these grievances. Hence, on this count, we find enquiry vitiated.
26. The Enquiry, therefore, has to proceed further from the stage at which we have noticed lacunae i.e. from the stage of supply of Enquiry Report to the petitioner. The petitioner has received that Enquiry Report now, we therefore, direct him to file his appropriate representation/ reply thereto explaining why such enquiry report should not be acted upon against him. The said representation/ response should be filed within a period of four weeks from today. The Disciplinary authority shall thereafter consider the same and pass fresh orders in the matter in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case within a further period of four weeks. The Disciplinary authority shall not be influenced by its earlier view or order in the matter.
27. The impugned removal order dated 22.12.2004 passed by Respondent No. 3 - Deputy General Manager (Personnel) is accordingly quashed and set aside. The further orders passed in Appeal against him or in review on it are, therefore, also set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to be under suspension from today till Disciplinary authority decides the matter again within a period of eight weeks. The respondents shall pay to the petitioner subsistence allowance for the period from 01.09.2011 till the Disciplinary authority passes appropriate order in the matter. The entitlement of the petitioner to back wages and continuity shall depend upon the view Disciplinary authority takes in the matter. If he is exonerated, he shall be entitled to relief of reinstatement with continuity and wages from 22.12.2004 onwards. In other words, doctrine of relation back shall apply. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
28. Before concluding, we record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Advocate Smt. Bharati Dangare, the learned Amicus Curiae.
29. We direct a copy of this Judgment be sent to Managing Director of the Oriental Bank of Commerce for his information and necessary action.