Responsibility, Credibility On Bank Employees Is On Higher Side: Allahabad HC Upholds Dismissal In Money Laundering Case
Recently, the Allahabad High Court held that the responsibilities of a Bank employee and his credibility and integrity are on a higher footing than others. In case of misuse of money deposited in the bank, the punishment of dismissal is proportionate.While upholding the dismissal of Head Chasier, UCO Bank in the case of fraudulent transaction, bench comprising of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi...
Recently, the Allahabad High Court held that the responsibilities of a Bank employee and his credibility and integrity are on a higher footing than others. In case of misuse of money deposited in the bank, the punishment of dismissal is proportionate.
While upholding the dismissal of Head Chasier, UCO Bank in the case of fraudulent transaction, bench comprising of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that “in the matters of banking, the responsibility and credibility on the person is on the higher side and devotion to duty as well as the confidence and trust is to be utmost.”
Factual Background
Appellant served as Head Cashier in UCO Bank when he was placed under suspension in 2011. In the show cause notice, it was alleged that while working as Head Cashier at the Jaunpur Branch, the appellant had entered/created different entries of amounting to Rs. 21.5 Lakhs in the account of Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Jaunpur unauthorizedly on the strength of debit vouchers which were neither signed by the competent authority nor by the account holder and the said amount was withdrawn in cash.
Since the reply was found unsatisfactory, a charge-sheet was issued against the appellant. In Inquiry proceedings, the appellant stated that as per Clause 7 of Schedule III Part D of the Circular dated 20.05.2010, the Head Cashier shall independently clear and transfer cheques, vouchers etc. (where credits or debits) up to and including Rs.50,000/- and cash vouchers upto Rs.50,000/- jointly with an authorized person. Since the Bank Manager was dominating him, he had taken his password and ID who in turn had misused the same.
The appellant stated the Inquiry Officer, without considering his reply, submitted his report stating that the charged against the appellant were proven. He also stated that being Head Cashier-II he was not authorized to make such entries. Appellant also alleged that the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service, without considering his reply. The appeal filed by the appellant before the General Manager was also dismissed.
Petitioner submitted that several transactions had taken place using his id and password while he was on leave. It was stated that at all stages, replies filed by him were not considered by the Authorities. The writ petition filed by the appellant against the dismissal order was also dismissed. Accordingly, he filed the special appeal.
Counsel for the appellant contended that a finding regarding the misappropriation of funds was never recorded against the appellant. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v., Saroj Kumar Sinha, it was argued that the appellant was never supplied the documents for him to make a case for himself. It was also argued that his service record for the last 17 years was unblemished and the same should have been considered before dismissing him from service.
Per contra, counsels for respondents argued that a disciplinary inquiry was conducted against 5 employees and all five were dismissed from service. One of the similar situated employee had filed writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, his review application was also dismissed with an observation that the petitioner, under the garb of review, was attempting to rehear of the case, when he was afforded full opportunity of hearing in disciplinary proceedings. Similar arguments were raised in this case.
It was contended that the appellant had not informed the higher authorities once he was aware that the Branch Manager had misused his id and password for illegal transactions. It showed his involvement in the incident in collusion with others. It was also argued that appellant's admission that his Id and password were misused when he was away was sufficient to prove that the entries were made from his account. Accordingly, the punishment of dismissal was justified.
High Court Verdict
According to the Court, the main question for its consideration was who would be responsible for the misuse of Id and password of the appellant. The Court held that the appellant alone was to be blamed for misuse of his ID-password as he was not supposed to share it with anyone, not even the bank manager.
“Once a person is employed in the Bank and he has been given a password/ID, so long as he is in the Bank, it is the legal and moral duty of the appellant/petitioner to keep secrecy of the password/ID. If it is misused, he ought to have reported the matter to the higher officials. Knowingly, the appellant/petitioner himself has shared the password/ID with then Branch Manager, who in turn has made some fictitious entries using his password.”
The Court further observed that full opportunity was granted to the appellant to place his case in before the disciplinary authorities. Since he was unable to prove his case, he was dismissed from service. Other employees involved in the “fraudulent” act were also dismissed. It was observed that necessary documents had been supplied to the appellant and his rely was duly considered by the authorities.
Reliance was placed on Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, wherein the Apex Court had held that “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 become a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank.”
The Court held that since the banker had failed to discharge his duty as a banker and protect the money of the people, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate. Reliance was placed on Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, wherein the Supreme Court held that in case charges have been proved against a bank employee, the punishment of dismissal is valid as “he failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and his acts were prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.”
Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in M.L. Singla v. Punjab National Bank, wherein it was held that once it is held that principles of natural justice were not violated and charges proved are grave, punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate.
The Court held that normally superior Courts do not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The Court held that since the petitioner was in banking services and charges against him were proved, the punishment of dismissal from service is not disproportionate.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Nagendra Kumar Pandey v. General Manager Uco Bank Hazratganj Lucknow And Ors. [Special Appeal 65/2019]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 489