Kiran Raj

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the discharge from service of a former Head Cashier of the Central Bank of India. The petitioner had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings after being found guilty of misappropriation of funds and record manipulation. The legal heirs of the petitioner, who continued the litigation after his demise, argued that the penalty was disproportionate and that the inquiry process had procedural irregularities. The court reviewed the disciplinary proceedings and found no grounds for interference.

The petitioner, who was employed as a Head Cashier at the OSFC Extension Counter of the Central Bank of India, was alleged to have misappropriated Rs. 4,10,000 in two transactions in June 1999. The allegations stated that he later adjusted the amounts by altering cash records and inserting additional entries. It was further stated that he modified the final cash book balance to conceal discrepancies.

The petitioner was suspended on July 5, 1999. During the investigation, it was alleged that Rs. 2,50,000 had been misappropriated on June 16, 1999, through HSS Account No. 1585, and another Rs. 1,60,000 was misappropriated on June 26, 1999. The petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that the discrepancies arose due to work pressure and a shortage of staff. He stated that the amount had been restored and that there was no financial loss to the bank.

A charge sheet was issued, and a departmental inquiry was conducted. The inquiry report found the petitioner guilty of the charges. On August 28, 2000, the Assistant General Manager imposed the penalty of discharge from service. The appellate authority, on November 7, 2001, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and upheld the penalty. The petitioner then approached the Orissa High Court, but he passed away during the proceedings. His legal heirs continued the case, seeking to quash the disciplinary orders and reinstate him posthumously.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the penalty was excessive and that the bank had not suffered any loss. The judgment recorded:

"The deceased-petitioner (CSE) was of course found to be guilty of the charge, but in fact, he had not committed any misconduct, rather the aforesaid allegation was being not established against the deceased-petitioner (CSE) and, therefore, the penalty of ‘discharge from service’ as imposed on the deceased-petitioner (CSE) may kindly be set aside."

It was further argued that since the alleged amount had been adjusted, and there was no mens rea, the penalty was too harsh. The court examined the disciplinary records and found that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to present his defense. The judgment noted:

"The employee of the bank should not only maintain highest degree of integrity and honesty, but also is required to discharge the duty with dedication and devotion. The deceased-petitioner (CSE) being the employee of the bank was supposed to maintain such standard, as he was the Head Cashier dealing with the cash of the bank, but he had utterly failed to discharge his duty with utmost honesty and integrity with due diligence."

The petitioner had argued that he was denied the right to be represented by a lawyer during the disciplinary proceedings. The court referred to the relevant provisions and stated:

"A lawyer can only be engaged by the charge-sheeted employee with the permission of the management, which is in terms of the provision of 19.12 of the bipartite settlement. The deceased-petitioner (CSE) requested permission, which was declined. However, he did not challenge this refusal and actively participated in the inquiry, cross-examining witnesses and submitting representations."

The court found that the inquiry proceedings were conducted with due process and that the petitioner had been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The judgment noted:

"The petitioner was provided sufficient notice, an opportunity to explain his position, and was allowed to participate in the inquiry. The penalty was imposed only after due consideration of the evidence and the charges established."

The petitioner’s legal heirs argued that the punishment was disproportionate, given that the misappropriated amount had been restored. The court examined whether the penalty of discharge from service was excessive in the circumstances. The judgment recorded:

"Good conduct and discipline are really important traits of a good employee, but if either of the same is lost, the employer would definitely lose confidence on its employee. Trust is such a quality which once lost cannot be revived again."

The court also stated:

"In this case, the deceased-petitioner (CSE) was dealing with cash of the bank and his role was to accept cash from the customers and account for it, but in this case, not only did the deceased-petitioner (CSE) misappropriate the deposits of the customers, but also committed such misappropriation for a temporary period by manipulating the registers and documents and, thereby, has misconducted in performing his duties and himself was directly involved in misappropriation."

The court examined the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and observed that courts do not act as appellate authorities over disciplinary proceedings. It stated:

"The scope of judicial review against the order passed in the departmental proceeding is very limited and the Courts while exercising their powers of judicial review over such matters do not sit as the Appellate Authority."

It further noted:

"Decision qua the nature and quantum is the prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority, but the function of the Court is only to decide as to whether the quantum of punishment is shockingly disproportionate or commensurate to the misconduct."

The court found no grounds to interfere with the penalty imposed. It observed:

"The punishment ‘from discharge of service’ as imposed on the deceased-petitioner (CSE) is not shockingly disproportionate, but appears to be commensurate to his misconduct."

The judgment also noted that since the petitioner had passed away, there was no justification for reconsidering the penalty. It stated:

"Further, it is not in dispute that the employee who was found guilty and penalized had in fact expired in the meantime and, therefore, in such situation, there is hardly any necessity to interfere with the penalty."

The writ petition was dismissed, and the court declined to award costs. The judgment concluded:

"In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs."

Case Title: Sarat Chandra Sahoo (D) & Others vs. Central Bank of India & Others
Case Number: OJC No. 1572 of 2002
Bench: Justice Gourishankar Satapathy

[Read/Download order]