Post on 11-Mar-2020
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 1 of 25
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA,
MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) No. 254/2007
Sri Arun Kumar Roy, Senior Manager, Security, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Guwahati, GNB Road, Chandmari, Opp. Flood Control Office, Guwahati-3 (since Dismissed) Resident of House No. 59, Bye Lane No.6, Pub-sarania, Guwahati-3, Assam.
…………Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Union Bank of India, through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Union Bank of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 4000021.
2. The Executive Director, Union Bank of
India, Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 4000021.
3. The General Manager (HRMD), Union Bank
of India, Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 4000021.
4. The Deputy General Manager (HRM),
Union Bank of India, Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021.
5. The Assistant Geneal Manager (IR), Union
Bank of India, Central Office, Union Bank
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 2 of 25
Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021.
6. The Assistant General Manager, Union
Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office, Guwahati, GNB Road, Chandmari, Guwahati-3, Assam.
7. Sri Anwar Ali, Inquiry Officer, B-1502,
Atlantic Building B-Wing, Sagarcity, V.P. Road, Off. S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058.
8. Union of India, through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), North Block, New Delhi – 110011.
……….Respondents.
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA
For the Petitioner : Mr. B. Kalita, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Khanikar, Adv. For the respondents: Mr. L.P. Sarma, Adv. Date of hearing : 10.05.2011. Date of judgement : 26.05.2011.
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
B.K. Sharma, J The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-H
order dated 21.3.2006, by which pursuant to the
departmental proceeding, he was dismissed from
service of the respondent Bank as Senior Manager
(Security). He is also aggrieved by the appellate order
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 3 of 25
dated 26.6.2006, by which the departmental appeal
preferred by him against the order of dismissal, was
also rejected.
2. The petitioner while was serving in the
respondent Bank as Senior Manager (Security) was
served with the charge sheet dated 13.8.2005
containing the statement of allegations and
attributing misconducts as follows :-
“1. Doing acts unbecoming of an Officer Employee of the Bank.
2. Failure to discharge his duties with
honesty and integrity.
3. Acting otherwise than in his best judgement in the performance of his official duties.
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS The following acts of omission and commission have been reported against Shri A.K. Roy, Senior Manager (Security), Regional Office, Guwahati. Kanpith Branch, Surat was holding
revolver .32 bore make Webbly Scott No. 60696. On 15.02.1996, Shri A.K. Roy, then Security Officer, Ahmedabad placed a note before the Dy. Zonal Head seeking permission to get the weapon transferred in his personal name. Though the proposal put up by him was not in line with the Bank‟s policy, the then Dy. Zonal Head approved the same. Thereafter, the permission of the Licensing Authority was taken and the
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 4 of 25
weapon was transferred in the name of Shri A.K. Roy at Ahmedabad.
Shri Roy was transferred from
Ahmedabad to Bhopal in August 1999. On his transfer to Bhopal he was required to take immediate steps to return the weapon to the Bank. However, he preferred to deposit the revolver with the private Arms Dealer “for oiling and servicing” on 26.11.1999 against his personal name and Arms Licence for which no permission was accorded by superior officers.
In July 2003 when Capt. G.S. Gulati,
Asstt. Manager (Security) from Regional Office, Baroda visited Kanpith Branch, he learnt about the Bank‟s revolver being held by Shri A.K. Roy. Thereafter, the Chief Manager (Security), Central Office, telephonically informed Shri Roy on 26.07.2003 to get the weapon transferred in the Bank‟s name. In terms of letter no. SEC:BR:0316:147 dated 27.07.2003 Shri Roy was advised by the Chief Manager (Security) to send the copy of the Safe Custody Receipt to Zonal Security Manager, Ahmedabad and to get the weapon transferred to any branch in Ahmedabad City in consultation with the Zonal Security Manager, Ahmedabad. Shri Roy thereafter, wrote a backdated letter as of 25.07.2003 to the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad seeking permission to transfer the weapon in the Bank‟s name.
Subsequently Zonal Office, Ahmedabad
was advised to obtain a licence for the said weapon in the name of the Branch Manager, C.G. Road branch. The action
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 5 of 25
of Shri Roy in getting the weapon transferred in his name without any purchase/gift transaction was viewed seriously by the Police Authorities of Ahmedabad. The weapon was taken in the Bank‟s possession in July 2004 and was auctioned during February 2005 by Zonal Office, Ahmedabad for an amount of Rs. 1.40 lacs.
The act of Shri Roy of keeping the
Bank‟s revolver for 4 years even after his transfer from Ahmedabad is against the security policy of the Bank and it is hereby alleged that he had done so as to get the Bank‟s weapon transferred in his own name and make wrongful gain from the same.
3. The gist of the aforesaid charge is that the
petitioner while was holding the Bank’s revolver .32
bore make Webbly Scott No. 60696 as the Security
Officer of the Bank while was posted at Ahmedabad
got the weapon transferred to his name in the year
1996. Thereafter, although he was transferred from
Ahmedabad to Bhopal in August, 1995, he did not
return the weapon to the Bank and instead deposited
the same with a private Arms Dealer on 26.11.99
against his personal name. In July, 2003, it was learnt
that the Bank’s revolver was being held by the
petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was
telephonically informed on 26.7.2003 to get the
weapon transferred in the Bank’s name. By letter
dated 27.7.2003, the petitioner was also informed by
Chief Manager (Security) to send the safe custody
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 6 of 25
receipt to Zonal Security Manager, Ahmedabad and to
get the weapon transferred to any branch in
Ahmedabad city in consultation with the Zonal
Security Manager, Ahmedabad. The petitioner
thereafter wrote a back dated letter as of 25.7.2003
to the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad seeking
permission of transfer of the weapon in the Bank’s
name.
4. By the aforesaid act, the petitioner got the
Bank’s revolver transferred in his personal name
without any purchase / gift transaction, which the
Police authorities of Ahmedabad viewed seriously.
The petitioner also kept the Bank’s revolver for four
years even after his transfer from Ahmedabad, which
was against the security policy of the Bank. Thus, it
was alleged that he had done the above act for
wrongful gain. The revolver was eventually taken to
Bank’s possession in July, 2004 and thereafter was
auctioned in February, 2005, which fetched the
amount of Rs. 1.40 lakhs.
5. The above charge sheet was preceded by a show
cause notice to the petitioner regarding illegal
possession of the revolver to which the petitioner had
replied vide Annexure-A letter dated 6.6.2005. Being
not satisfied with the reply, the Bank had issued the
aforesaid charge sheet. In his reply, the plea of the
petitioner was that since his transfer to Bhopal from
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 7 of 25
Ahmedabad was unexpected and sudden and it was
due to exigencies of organizational need, he had to
proceed to Bhopal immediately to take charge there
and consequently could not hand over the revolver to
the Bank. According to the said reply, he had
deposited the revolver with a gun dealer on technical
ground for safe custody and timely maintenance of
the weapon. It was also stated in the reply that the
gun licence was to expire on 31.12.1999 and since the
renewal permission was needed, he made repeated
request to the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad.
6. In response to the above charge sheet, the
petitioner in his reply furnished vide Annexure-C
dated 13.9.2005 denied the charge and alleged that
the charge levelled against him was ill motivated.
The petitioner in his reply justified his action of
retaining the Bank’s revolver on the ground of his
sudden transfer to Bhopal and the request to the
Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad for renewal of the
gun licence.
7. As noted above, the Disciplinary Authority being
not satisfied with the reply furnished by the
petitioner, ordered for a departmental enquiry with
due intimation to the petitioner. The petitioner duly
participated in the departmental enquiry, on
conclusion of which he had submitted his written
brief. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report dated
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 8 of 25
19.12.2005 (Annexure-G) holding the petitioner to be
guilty of the charge/ allegation. The petitioner duly
submitted his representation against the inquiry
report. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority in
consideration of the materials on record, passed the
impugned Annexure-H order of dismissal from service
dated 21.3.2006, in respect of which the petitioner
preferred the Annexure-I appeal dated 1.4.2006. In
the appeal, the petitioner had contended that there
was nothing to prove that he had done anything
contrary to the Arms Act or pre-judicial to the
interest of the Institution. He also contended that the
possession of the revolver by him till it was returned
to the Bank, was without any ulterior motive.
8. Being not satisfied with the plea raised in the
departmental appeal, the Appellate Authority while
holding that the petitioner failed to clarify as to why
he had deposited the weapon with the Arms dealer
instead of with the Bank and that his such action of
not handing over the revolver to his successor and
resorting to fraudulent activities to get the weapon
transferred in his personal name, indicated his loss of
honesty and integrity, rejected the appeal. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ
petition, praying for setting aside and quashing of the
impugned orders.
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 9 of 25
9. The respondents have filed their counter
affidavit denying the pleas and contentions raised in
the writ petition. It has been stated in the affidavit
that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of
a Security officer of a Bank and since it was found
that he was guilty of the charge referred to above,
the Disciplinary Authority took the decision not to
retain him in service, which according to the
respondents, cannot be interfered with exercising
writ jurisdiction.
10. In paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 of the affidavit, it has
been stated thus :-
“6. That it is pertinent to mention here that the post of Security Officer is a supervisory post in respect of supervision of all the branches under a Zonal office and / or Regional Office. In the year 1996 the petitioner was posted at Ahmedabad Zonal Office and under that Zonal office there was a branch known as Kanpith Branch at Surat and the said branch was holding a revolver point .32 bore make Webbly Scott No. 60696 in the name of the Branch Manager. The petitioner got managed to transfer the said weapon in his personal name while he was at Ahmedabad. The petitioner did not disclose this fact to the higher authorities of the Respondent Bank.
7. The petitioner was transferred from Ahmedabad to Bhopal in August, 1999 and petitioner, on such transfer, was
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 10 of 25
required to take immediate steps to return the weapon to the Bank but however he did not deposit the revolver and he deposited the said revolver with a private dealer for “oiling and servicing on 26.11.99 against his personal name”, without disclosing this fact to his successor at Ahmedabad or to his superior and / or higher authorities of the Bank. The matter of transferring the weapon in the name of the petitioner came to the knowledge of the Chief Manager, Security Central Office Mumbai only on 26.7.07. The Chief Manager Security asked the petitioner to get that weapon transferred in the Bank‟s name and the petitioner was further advised by the Chief Manager, Security to send a copy of the safe custody receipt to the Zonal Security Manager, Ahmedabad and got the weapon transferred in his name without any purchase / gift transaction was viewed seriously by the police authorities of Ahmedabad and the weapon was taken back in the Bank‟s possession in July, 2004 and the same was auctioned in the month of February, 2005 by the Zonal Office, Ahmedabad for an amount of Rs. 1.40 lakhs.
8. That the action of the petitioner in keeping the Bank‟s revolver for 4 years even after his transfer from Ahmedabad was against the security policy of the Bank and the petitioner transferred the Bank‟s weapon in his own name and make wrongful gain from the same and therefore the Respondent Bank issued a show cause notice to the petitioner vide No. CD/IRD/224 dated 26th April, 2005.“
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 11 of 25
11. It has been contended that the very act in
which the petitioner was involved depicts lack of
integrity and honesty and consequently, the
petitioner who was in Bank’s service as a Security
Officer, had to be dismissed from service. Along with
the affidavit, the respondents have also enclosed the
copy of the letter dated 26.12.2002 (Annexure-VIII)
by which the petitioner had requested the Police
Commissioner, Ahmedabad to recommend his case to
the Govt. of Gujarat for renewal of his gun licence in
his name. In the letter, there was not even a
whisper that the revolver belonged to the Bank.
The letter was under own handwriting of the
petitioner, which was followed by another letter
dated 7.7.2003 addressed to the Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Gujarat by the petitioner, by which also a
request was made for grant of All India status to the
Arm in his name. The said two letters were exhibited
during the enquiry proceeding as MEX-19 & 20
respectively. For a ready reference, both the letters
are quoted below :-
“To, A.K. ROY The Police Commissioner 204, D.K. Surbhi C/O Police Commissioner GOMTI NAGAR Office, SAHI BAUG COLONY AHMEDABAD DHOPAL-462003 GUJRAT Dt. 26.12.02
CAMP : TIKAMGARH M.P. LALITPUR U.P
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 12 of 25
Sir,
Kind attention : SH. KAUSHIK, IPS.
Sub : Arms Licence No. 392/Satellite – A.K. Roy
The renewed gun licence “ No. 392/Satelite” pertains to the undersigned received on 24.12.02 at
my residential address as mentioned above. As per the licence date of which licence expires 29th Dec 2002, having the area of validity, the State of Gujrat.
Application for renewal was submitted at the
office of the Police Commissioner office on 24th Nov, 1999 with the request for renewal as well as for extension of area of validity for whole of India. As explicity mentioned in my application dt. 24.11.99 the reason for request to receive the gun licence with extended area of validity, the same reason still hold good. You are therefore requested kindly recommend my case to the Govt. of Gujrat for doing the needful. Generally it is time taking processes kindly extend the validity of gun licence for another term.
The original gun licence will be deposited to you good selves on my return to Bhopal.
Kindly Acknowledge.
With regards Sincerely yours
Sd/- illegible Enclo : Xerox copy of the gun licence.” “From : A.K. Roy, 204 D.K. Surabhi, Gomti Colony, Bhopal 462003 Ph. ® 0755-2766503. To, Shri P.K. Laheri, IAS,
Chief Secretary, Govt. of Gujrat, C/o. Secretariate, Gandhi Nagar.
Date 7.7.2003
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 13 of 25
Sir,
Sub : Arms licence No. 329/Satellite Ahmedabad.
The undersigned possesses one small caliber
weapon on the above numbered licence issued by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (Xerox copy of
licence enclosed). Consequent upon my transfer (the undersigned
is working as Security Officer in the Union Bank of India- a Central Govt. undertaking) to the State of Madhya Pradesh in Nov, 1999, the weapon as per the arms act, has been deposited with a reputed arms dealer of Ahmedabad (Xerox copy of the receipt is enclosed). For getting all India arms licence status the undersigned applied to the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad ; in turn received reply from the said office of approach licencing authority in Bhopal for getting extension in the area of validity (Xerox copy of the letter is enclosed).
The incharge, arms licence section at the
Collectorate office Bhopal, when contacted explained that since the licence had been issued by
the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad of Gujrat state and weapon was deposited in the territory of Gujrat, the All India Status of the arms licence was to be granted by the Home Ministry, Govt. of Gujrat. The Home Ministry Govt. of Gujrat is requested to grant all India status to my arms licence no. 382 satellite. Earlier applications to this effect are already submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad.
Your good self being at the apex position in
the administrative strata of the Govt. Gujrat, are being approached with the request to kindly help in the long pending issue.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- illegible”.
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 14 of 25
12. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, he
has reiterated his stand in the writ petition. His plea
is that the retention of the revolver in his name and
his action in not returning the same to the Bank, was
bonafide and not with any ill motive.
13. I have heard Mr. B. Kalita, learned senior
counsel assistant by Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel
for the petitioner as well as Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned
counsel represented the respondent Bank.
14. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner
strenuously argued that having regard to the facts
and circumstances including the fact that although
the petitioner had retained the revolver during his
transfer to Bhopal, there being no ill intention to
convert the same to his personal name, the
Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered that
aspect of the matter. According to him, had it been
the intention of the petitioner to make unlawful gain,
things would have been followed in quick succession.
He further submitted that since the licence was
transferred in the name of the petitioner as per the
approval of the competent authority, the possession
of the same by the petitioner was not unlawful.
15. Countering the above argument, Mr. L.P.
Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Bank
submitted that since the fact of transferring the gun
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 15 of 25
licence by the petitioner to his name followed by
retention of the same by him for long four years, is an
established fact, that by itself proves the charge
against the petitioner. He submitted that the plea
that he did not gain anything by retaining the Bank’s
revolver, cannot come to rescue, inasmuch as, it is
the conduct of the petitioner as Security Officer of
the Bank, what is required to be looked into and not
the inferences which the petitioner seeks this Court
to draw.
16. I have considered the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties and the entire
materials on record including the departmental
proceeding file. In consideration of the same, my
conclusion and finding are as follows.
17. Although the petitioner has contended that the
licence of the gun was transferred to his name as per
the approval of the Bank and in the charge sheet
although the approval is indicated, but the allegation
was that the petitioner misconducted himself to get
the weapon transferred in his personal name and the
proposal was put up by him towards that end, was not
in line with the Bank’s policy. The second allegation
against the petitioner was that he retained the
revolver in his personal capacity inspite of his
transfer from Ahmedabad to Bhopal. In the affidavit-
in-reply, the petitioner has annexed certain
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 16 of 25
documents to contend that the licence was
transferred by him as per the approval accorded by
the competent authority of the Bank.
18. I have carefully gone through the enclosed
documents. Annexure-L is the letter dated 16.2.1996
addressed to the Chief Manager of the particular
branch of the Bank by which the petitioner had
sought for transferring of the revolver to his name. In
the letter, the request was made to transfer the
licence to the “undersigned” i.e. the petitioner. On
the body of the said letter, an endorsement was
made for writing to the Police Commissioner for
transfer. Thereafter, the Manager of the Bank by his
Annexure-M letter dated 28.2.1996 to the Police
Commissioner, Surat City, Surat, sought for
permission for transfer of the revolver from Surat to
Ahmedabad. The letter was followed by another
letter dated 8.4.1996 (Annexure-N) followed by
another letter dated 3.5.1996 (Annexure-O).
19. Nowhere in the said communications, there was
any indication to transfer the revolver in the name of
the petitioner. It was the petitioner, who had written
the 1st letter dated 16.2.1996 (Annexure-L), by which
he had sought for transfer of the licence issued by the
District Administration, Ahmedabad to his name. It
was none of the business of the petitioner to seek
transfer of the licence into his name as the revolver
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 17 of 25
did not belong to him. He being a Security personal of
the Bank ought not to have sought for transfer of the
gun licence to his name.
20. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner not
only transferred the licence to his name but also kept
the gun to himself for long four years on his transfer
to Bhopal. Instead of depositing the same to the Bank
authority, he had deposited the same with a Arms
dealer. Not only that in the above quoted
communications, he did not even remotely indicate
that the gun belonged to the Bank. Everything was
done in his personal capacity as if the gun belonged
to him.
21. All the above aspects of the matter have been
duly taken note of in the departmental proceeding
and the Inquiry officer in his elaborate report has
dealt with each and every aspects of the matter. He
has meticulously discussed the evidence on record
and recorded his findings.
22. As recorded in the enquiry report, the
petitioner got the approval for transferring the Bank’s
revolver in his personal name in contradiction to his
own observation in MEX-14 where he had
recommended that the “gun licence should be
issued by designation in place of individual Branch
Manager”. It has rightly been recorded in the enquiry
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 18 of 25
report that the petitioner did not apply the same rule
to himself. In this connection, the particular findings
recorded in the report are quoted below :-
“It is quite surprising that the CSO did not apply the same rule to himself which he wanted to be applied on the branch.
A perusal of the gun license issued to the CSO MEx-23 indicates that it was issued on 29.12.1995 in his personal name and had his residential address on it. There was no mention of his designation or the name of the Bank. The validity period for the purchase of the weapon was mentioned therein as 28/3/1996, which was subsequently extended to 28/6/1996. There is no evidence that if the CSO wanted to purchase a weapon, he obtained any quotations from any of the Arms dealers in Gujrat or else where. This indicates that after acquiring the license, CSO had no intention of purchasing the weapon. The license has the endorsement reading as under
“Inspected the one .32 bore revolver no. 60696 Webley & Scott. It found corrected on date 17/6/1996 – signed police inspector- License branch”.
The entry of Banks revolver in the personal gun license of the CSO reads as under :-
“Entered the description of one .32 bore revolver no. 60696 Webley Scott purchased from Shri branch manager, Union Bank of India, Kanpith Branch, Surat City license No. 191/676 vide C.P. Surat City letter no. LB/Hathiyas/wastu/632/740, 836/96 dated 4/96”.
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 19 of 25
The above endorsement is very distressing as according to it the revolver was purchased by the CSO from the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Kanpith Branch, which amounts to fraud on the part of the CSO as the revolver was not sold to him. Although the documents, if any, connected with the sale aspect or otherwise of the revolver to the CSO have not come on record of the inquiry, the needle of suspicion points to submission of forged sale documents of the revolver by the CSO to police authorities, otherwise the endorsement would not be made the way it has been made.
It for a moment we take it that Shri Roy forgot to take any step during the above-mentioned period of full one month, at least he could have taken steps during his visit to Ahmedabad in November, 1996, when he deposited the said revolver with M/s. Bandookwala on 26.11.1999 (MEx-3) and that too without referring it to or / and taking approval from it‟s legitimate owner for which no documentary evidence is held on records at any level with Bank (Kanpith Branch / ZO Ahmedabad /CO Mumbai). Also, Shri Roy did not produce any documentary evidence during the course of regular hearing which refutes this fact.
Head Shri Roy intended to return the revolver back to Union Bank of India, he could have informed about it‟s existence and it‟s whereabouts either to Capt. Jose Alex, who took over the charge from Shri Roy at ZO Ahmedabad and has categorically denied having any information about it in his deposition at Pages 12 & 13 of proceedings of regular hearing before the IA, or to the
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 20 of 25
Security Department at Central Office. No action of Shri Roy in this direction clearly spells out his intentions of not returning the said revolver to Bank.
On a critical examination of the arguments of the PO, I agree with him that the CSO did not return the revolver to his successor on his transfer and also had no intention to do so.
The personal license of Shri Roy had an endorsement – „Entered the description of one .32 bore Revolver No. 60696, Webbly Scott purchased from Manager Union Bank of India, Kanpith Branch, Surat ….‟ (page 3 of MEx-23). During the discussions with Capt. Alex, when Licencing authorities came to know that the said revolver was neither purchased from Union Bank nor gifted by Bank, and that this was personal license of Shri Roy (the address does not speak about Union Bank at all), the dealing authorities got furious and insisted on for a disciplinary action against Shri Roy and a copy of the proceedings thereof for effecting the transfer (MEx-24).
Article of Charge
In view of what has been stated above I now proceed to discuss the components of the Articles of Charge as under :
1.Doing acts unbecoming of an Officer Employee of the Bank. The CSO as an officer of the Bank
promoted his personal interest rather than protecting Bank‟s interest by having Banks revolver transferred in his personal name. This was done on a wrong and misleading
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 21 of 25
pretext of better maintenance of the revolver, when the same revolver was being well maintained by Kanpith Branch since 1949 as per the CSO‟s own observations as appearing in his inspection reports. Further, as rightly argued by the CSO, the Bank Management had provided the revolver to Kanpith Branch with some purpose in 1949. By withdrawing it from the branch and not deploying it else where in the Bank‟s network, the CSO diluted the security of Kanpith branch and also used the Bank‟s property for his personal use. Moreover had the CSO advised the Management to dispose off the revolver by way of sale in 1995 (when it had come to his knowledge as claimed by him), Bank would not have suffered loss due to late disposal of revolver in February 2005 (notional interest for 10 years). There is a clear case of holding this component of Articles of charge as proved and is held proved accordingly.
2. Failure to discharge his duties with honesty and integrity. The CSO deliberately concealed the fact
about the said revolver from the Management till such time as he got his personal arms license issued and then misguided the AGM, Ahmedabad in granting approval for the transfer of the Bank‟s revolver in his personal name. He did not place his personal arms license for perusal before the approving authority and made him to believe that the revolver was being transferred in the official name of the Regional Security officer. The CSO had one this after a careful planning, which is manifest in the fact that even after acquiring the personal license he did not obtain any quotations from various Arms dealers. Had he done so, he would mentioned this aspect
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 22 of 25
in his explanation dated 6.6.2005 and his statement of defence dated 13.9.2005. The action of the CSO in not handing over the revolver and the cartridges to his successor until the whistle was blown by Capt. G.S. Gulati leave no doubt about the lack of honesty and integrity of the SO. I hold this component of the Articles of Charge as proved.
3. Action otherwise than in his best judgement in the performance of his official duty.
The best judgement for the CSO would have been to advise Kanpith branch to maintain it through it in the same way as was done by the Branch since 1949 or at the most the Armed Guard posted thereat could have been instructed to get it cleaned and oiled at regular intervals, in case the CSO felt that special care was necessary for the revolver. Further, in case the revolver was surplus at Kanpith Branch and it was not required by any other branch of the Bank, the CSO should have taken steps for the disposal of the revolver by way of sale in 1996. Moreover, as a last resort the CSO felt that the custody of the surplus revolver at the branch posed some security threat he should have advised the branch to deposit the revolver with local arms dealer. The CSO did nothing of this sort but preferred to get the revolver transferred in his personal name by resorting to fraudulent means and took possession of 22 cartridges and held them in his possession illegally for a period of over 4 years. I, therefore, hold this component of the Articles of charge as proved.”
23. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner
also submitted that even if the charge against the
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 23 of 25
petitioner is said to have been established, there
being no loss caused to the Bank on account of
retention of the gun by the petitioner, the
punishment imposed, which is dismissal from service,
is disproportionate. Dealing with the case of
misappropriation in Municipality Vs. Krishnan
Behari reported in (1996) 2 SCC 714, the Apex Court
held that the amount misappropriated may be small
or large but it is the act of misappropriation i.e.
relevant. It was held that in such circumstances,
punishment of dismissal was proper. Similarly, in
Additional District magistrate Vs. Prabhakar
Chaturvedi reported in (1996) 2 SCC 12, a
temporary misappropriation of an amount of Rs.
21,000/- was viewed seriously by the Apex Court. It
was held that in such a case punishment of dismissal,
cannot be said to be disproportionate.
24. In the instant case, till the fact of possessing
the gun by the petitioner without depositing the same
to the Bank upon his transfer to Bhopal was detected,
which was long after four years, the petitioner apart
from converting the licence to his name, also got to
himself the gun as if the same was his personal
property. The question is not one of incurring any loss
by the Bank but the same relates to the conduct of
the petitioner, which on the face of it was
unbecoming of a Security Officer of the Bank.
Admittedly, he misutilised the confidence reposed on
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 24 of 25
him, firstly, by transferring the gun into his name and
thereafter keeping the same in his possession for long
four years.
25. The above quoted two letters written by the
petitioner speak for itself. As has been held by the
Apex Court in Channabasappa Basappa Happali Vs.
State of Mysore reported in AIR 1972 SC 32,
admission of fact as narrated in the charge itself
amounts to admission of guilt. It was a clear case of
indiscipline and nothing else. If a Bank Security
officer keeps the Bank’s gun to himself by converting
the same to his name and also takes recourse to
further conduct as reflected in the above quoted two
letters of the petitioner, the misconduct attributed
to the petitioner is fully established. The entire
defence of the petitioner amounted to a plea of quilt
on the facts on which the petitioner was charged and
consequently it cannot be said to be a case of
discharging the petitioner from the charge levelled
against him.
26. As regards the procedure adopted in the
enquiry, nothing was argued. The petitioner has not
shown any prejudice because of the procedure
adopted in conducting the enquiry. In fact, he was
provided with all the reasonable opportunity of being
heard. During the course of hearing of the writ
petition, nothing was contended that any prejudice
WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 25 of 25
was caused to the petitioner in the departmental
enquiry. What was contended is that the conduct
attributed to the petitioner as the misconduct, did
not call for any departmental proceeding and that
even if the charge is said to have been established,
the same did not call for extreme penalty of dismissal
from service. This aspect of the matter has been
dealt with above.
27. For all the aforesaid reasons and the conclusion
arrived at, I see no reason to interfere with the
impugned departmental proceeding and the
consequential orders of dismissal from service and
the rejection of the departmental appeal
respectively.
28. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ
petition and accordingly it is dismissed, leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Sukhamay