Oral Judgment:

Anil s. Kilor, J.

1. Heard.

2. The dismissal of the petitioner, who was serving as a Manager with the respondent–Bank, is under challenge in this petition.

3. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet containing total of eight charges. Upon conclusion of the departmental inquiry, Charge Nos. 1 to 8 were held to be proved.

4. On the basis of the findings recorded in respect of Charge Nos. 1, 3 and 5, a major penalty of dismissal was imposed, whereas minor penalties were imposed in respect of Charge Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8.

5. Charge No. 1 relates to bills purchased and admittedly availed by the petitioner by discounting cheques. Charge No. 2 relates to the issuance of cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in the respective accounts, resulting in their dishonour. Charge No. 3 relates to several purchases made by the petitioner using the credit card facility availed by him, and his failure to clear the outstanding dues. Charge No. 5 pertains to Leave Fare Concession (LFC), which was availed but did not travel to any place.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that no loss has been caused to the respondent–Bank, as the Bank has recovered all the amounts. It is further submitted that, since no loss has been caused, the order of dismissal is disproportionate, and the respondent–authorities have failed to consider the unblemished service record of the petitioner.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Narayan S/o. Namdeorao Salve Vs. The Managing Director, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai (Civil Writ Petition No. 4129 of 2016). Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 thereof read thus:

                   “10. Even if it is accepted that the charges are proved against the Petitioner, for the purpose of inflicting any punishment, it is mandatory for the Employer to take into consideration the nature and mitigating gravity of the charges and the circumstances, if any. Here in this case, admittedly, no loss has been caused to the Corporation. Moreover, it cannot be said with certainty that the Petitioner has done any conscious act in order to make undeserving gain. Similarly, undeniably Petitioner has rendered unblemished services of 27 years before the action in question. A due weightage, therefore, is required to be given to the said fact, while determining the punishment.

                   11. Not only Employer but also Appellate Authority required to take into consideration case specifically sought be made out before it by Petitioner regarding proportionality of punishment. The Appellate Authority has not taken into account the past service record of the Petitioner and the order of dismissal was confirmed essentially on the ground that the image of the Corporation is damaged by the acts in question. Since, Employer as well as Appellate Authority have failed to taken into consideration nature of gravity of misconduct, the past service record and other mitigating circumstances, the order of dismissal cannot sustain.”

8. On the contrary, Mr. Almelkar, learned counsel for the respondent–Bank, submits that there were 14 occasions on which the petitioner availed immediate credit against such instruments, and on each occasion, the cheques issued were returned unpaid. The amounts were subsequently adjusted by the petitioner at a later date. It is submitted that such conduct of the petitioner, being a Senior Officer/Manager, is wholly unacceptable. It is submitted that the petitioner was expected to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion, and diligence, and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer.

9. As regards Charge No. 2, it is pointed out that on 25 occasions, the cheques issued by the petitioner were returned unpaid due to insufficient balance in the respective accounts. It is, therefore, submitted that this conduct must be co-related with Charge No. 1.

10. As regards Charge No. 3, it is submitted that the petitioner made several purchases using the credit card facility availed by him from the respondent–Bank, and when he was asked to clear the outstanding dues within seven days on one occasion, the petitioner failed to comply the said direction.

11. As regards Charge No. 5, it pertains to the availing of Leave Fare Concession (LFC). It is pointed out that though the petitioner availed an LFC advance of Rs. 90,000/- and leave encashment of Rs. 10,261/-, he neither submitted the LFC bill nor adjusted the advance, despite being asked in writing by the Branch to do so. Thus, he misutilized the said facility. It is further pointed out that even after the article of charges was served upon the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted, the amount was not deposited and it was recovered subsequently.

12. It is, therefore, submitted that the mere ground that no loss was caused to the Bank is not sufficient to say that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate. It is submitted that since the petitioner did not discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion, and diligence, and conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer, the punishment of dismissal is just and proper.

13. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:

                   1. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C. Kakkar with connected matters [(2003) 4 SCC 364].

                   2. Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69.

                   3. State Bank of India and Others Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde [(2006) 7 SCC 212].

                   4. Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another Vs. Munna Lal Jain [(2005) 10 SCC 84].

14. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner was working as a Senior Officer/Manager with the respondent–Bank and was served with charge-sheet on 31.10.2007 containing total of eight charges. In the departmental inquiry, all eight charges were proved. However, for imposing the major penalty of dismissal, the respondent–Bank has relied upon the findings recorded in respect of Charge Nos. 1, 3 and 5.

15. As far as Charge No. 1 is concerned, there is no dispute about the 14 instances wherein the cheques issued by the petitioner were returned unpaid, and the amount was adjusted by him at a later stage. The petitioner had availed the facility of bills purchased by discounting cheques. It is not in dispute that all these bills were realized and no amount under the bills purchased (BP) facility was outstanding against him.

16. Charge No. 2, though not made the basis for dismissal, shows that on 25 occasions, the cheques issued by the petitioner were returned unpaid due to insufficient balance in the respective accounts.

17. Charge No. 3 relates to the credit card facility availed by the petitioner. It is observed that, on one occasion, when he was asked to clear the outstanding dues within seven days, he failed to comply the said direction. At the relevant time, the outstanding amount was Rs. 61,143.23.

18. Charge No. 5 pertains to the Leave Fare Concession (LFC), under which the Petitioner availed an advance of Rs. 90,000/- but did not undertake the journey for a period of three years. It is important to note that, though this was one of the articles of charge served upon the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted in respect thereof, the amount of Rs. 90,000/- was not returned by the petitioner till the conclusion of the inquiry. The said amount was subsequently recovered by the respondent–Bank.

19. As we have seen that the stand of the petitioner is limited only to the extent that, the amount was recovered by the Bank and since there is no loss caused to the Bank, the punishment is disproportionate.

20. In the above referred backdrop, we are of the opinion that the judgments relied upon by the respondent would be of great help. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C. Kakkar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 14 as under:

                   “14. A-bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik22 it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in. case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.”

21. In the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under:

                   “6. Regulation 3 of the said Regulations may also be noticed: "3. (1) Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer.

                   (2) Every officer employee shall maintain good conduct and discipline and show courtesy and attention to all persons in all transactions and negotiations.

                   (3) No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior.

                   (4) Every officer employee shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all persons for the time being under his control and authority.

                   7. It may be mentioned that in the memorandum of charges, the aforesaid two regulations are said to have been violated by the respondent. Regulation 3 requires every officer/employee of the bank to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. It requires the officer/employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and to act to the best of his judgment in performance of his official duties or in exercise of the powers conferred upon him. Breach of Regulation 3 is 'misconduct' within the meaning of Regulation 24. The findings of the Inquiry Officer which have been accepted by the disciplinary authority, and which have not been disturbed by the High Court, clearly show that in a number of instances the respondent allowed overdrafts or passed cheques involving substantial amounts beyond his authority. True, it is that in some cases, no loss has resulted from such acts. It is also true that in some other instances such acts have yielded profit to the Bank but it is equally true that in some other instances, the funds of the Bank have been placed in jeopardy; the advances have become sticky and irrecoverable. It is not a single act; it is a course of action spreading over a sufficiently long period and involving a large number of transactions. In the case of a bank – for that matter, in the case of any other organisation – every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting beyond authority - that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances - is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such adventures are not given to the employees of banks which deal with public funds. If what we hear about the reasons for the collapse of Barings Bank is true, it is attributable to the acts of one of its employees, Nick Leeson, a minor officer stationed at Singapore, who was allowed by his superiors to act far beyond his authority. As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organisation and more particularly, a bank is dependent upon each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of Regulation 3. It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really necessary though as a matter of fact, in this case there are findings that several advances and overdrawals allowed by the respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable. Just because, similar acts have fetched some profit - huge profit, as the High Court characterises it - they are no less blameworthy. It is wrong to characterise them as errors of judgment. It is not suggested that the respondent being a Class I Officer was not aware of the limits of his authority or of his powers. Indeed, Charge 9, which has been held established in full is to the effect that in spite of instructions by the Regional Office to stop such practice, the respondent continued to indulge in such acts. The Inquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. Similarly, Charge 8, which has also been established in full is to the effect that in spite of reminders, the respondent did not submit "Control Returns" to the Regional Office. We fail to understand how could all this be characterised as errors of judgment and not as misconduct as defined by the Regulations. We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a clear error in holding that the aforesaid conduct of the respondent does not amount to misconduct or that it does not constitute violation of Regulations 3 and 24.

22. In the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 9, 13, 18, 19 and 22 as under:

                   “9. It is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence which had been considered by the inquiry officer, a disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority. The finding of the High Court, on facts, runs to the teeth of the evidence on record.

                   13. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the High Court has erred both in law and on facts in interfering with the findings of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority by acting as a court of appeal and reappreciating the evidence.

                   18. In Chairman and MD, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar this Court held at SCC pp. 376-77, para 14 as under:

                   "14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority- cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.”

                   19. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC v. Hoti Lal it was pointed out as under: (SCC p. 614, para 10)

                   “If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable.”

                   22. In T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai such plea had been rejected by this Court. It was pointed out at SCC p. 267, para 29 as under:

                   “29. Mr Francis also submitted that a sum of Rs 34,436.85 being 5% of the total loss of Rs 6,88,737.12 is sought to be recovered from the respondent and that the present departmental proceedings is the only known allegation against the respondent and there was no such allegation earlier and, therefore, a lenient view should be taken by this Court and a relief prayed for by both the parties can be suitably moulded by this Court. We are unable to agree with the above submission which, in our opinion, has no force. The scope of judicial review is very limited. Sympathy or generosity as a factor is impermissible. In our view, loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated. In the instant case, the respondent employee is found b guilty of misappropriating the corporation funds. There is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefor with the quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary and Appellate Authority.”

23. In the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another Vs. Munna Lal Jain (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 17 as under:

                   “17. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik21, there is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulting in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.”

24. It is evident from the above referred observations that the bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion, and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. It is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere.

25. Furthermore, considering the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, which is confined to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision itself, and as far as the punishment is concerned, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.

26. Considering the charges levelled against the petitioner and the fact that the same have been proved, and by applying the aforesaid principles as regards the integrity, honesty, devotion, and diligence expected from a bank officer, we are of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

27. Rule stands discharged accordingly. No order as to costs.