Senthilkumar.D v. Canara Bank
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN D.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner Vs.
1.Canara Bank, Chief General Manager, Reviewing Authority, Human Resources Wing, Industrial Relation Section, Head Office, No.112, J.C.Road, Bengaluru - 560 002.
2.The Deputy General Manager, (Appellate Authority), Canara Bank, Human Resources Wing, Industrial Relation Section, Head Office, No.112, J.C.Road, Bengaluru - 560 002.
3.The Assistant General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Canara Bank, Human Resources Management Section, Circle Office, East Veli Steet, Madurai - 625 001.
... Respondents 1/10
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the concerned records from the respondent 1 to 3, quash the order of the first respondent dated 26.03.2020, the order of the second respondent dated 27.06.2019 and the order of the third respondent dated 21.06.2018 bearing Ref. MDUC HRM 1963 2018 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Cibi Chakrabarthi for Mr.A.Thiyagarajan For Respondents : Ms.S.Vanitha for Mr.M.Muthukumaran
ORDER
The writ petitioner joined the respondent Bank on 12.11.2001 as Probationary Clerk. He was working in Ariyalur branch from 06.05.2011 to 27.06.2014 as officer. He was transferred to Pallapatti branch. On 07.07.2017 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that when he was working in Ariyalur branch, suspicious current accounts in the name of Commercial Tax Officer, Ariyalur were opened and a number of unauthorized transactions were carried out in the said account and the petitioner's login ID was also used. The petitioner gave his explanation on 03.08.2017. 2/10
2. The stand of the petitioner is that he was not a party to any of the transactions and N.Sridharan, Senior Manager in branch incharge who had good knowledge over technical matters had made use of the petitioner's login ID and had carried out the transactions in question. Not satisfied with the petitioner's reply, an enquiry officer was appointed. Enquiry officer reported that the charges stood proved. The petitioner gave his representation in response to the report. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and passed order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also confirmed the order of the disciplinary action. The review petition was also rejected. Challenging the same, this writ petition came to be filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.
4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the impugned orders do not warrant interference.
3/10
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The articles of charge framed against the petitioner are as follows:
4/10
5/10
6. The stand of the petitioner is that he was not a party to the transactions. He wants to put the entire blame on the Branch Manager N.Sridharan. The enquiry officer has rendered several adverse findings against the petitioner. I do not want to traverse them at length. However, following findings clinch the issue against the petitioner :- 6/10
This indicates that the petitioner is not as innocent as he claims to be. From the said fraudulent account, monies have been transferred to the account of his wife and mother and later withdrawn also. The banking employee has to maintain the highest standards of integrity. The petitioner also failed to maintain the secrecy of the password. As noted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was bound to make verification of the day's transactions. He had not done so. That is why the employer chose to show the door to the petitioner.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 (Union of India & Others Vs Subrata Nath) laid down the parameters had held as follows:
"22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be 7/10
adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor."
The petitioner was given the fullest opportunity to defend his case. Enquiry authority had gone into the matter fully and rendered findings that the charges stood proved. The enquiry authority has not arbitrarily dealt with the issue. The enquiry report is well reasoned. The disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as revisional authority have all discussed the petitioner's contentions and thereafter concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer. No case for interference has been made out.
8/10
8. This writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 19.06.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MGA 9/10
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA 19.06.2023 10/10