Resorted To "Parallel Banking": Jammu & Kashmir High Upholds Peon's Dismissal For Misappropriation Of Funds
Observing that every bank employee is under solemn duty to protect the interest of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a peon from the Ellaquai Dehati Bank.A bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, "The petitioner has betrayed the trust and confidence of the bank by resorting to...
Observing that every bank employee is under solemn duty to protect the interest of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a peon from the Ellaquai Dehati Bank.
A bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,
"The petitioner has betrayed the trust and confidence of the bank by resorting to a parallel banking by receipt of deposit from customers against fake receipts and repay such deposits against withdrawals/cheques without routing the deposits and payment to the bank and made requisite entries falsely in the passbooks of the customers and this charge against the petitioner stood proved by way of a detailed inquiry."
The petitioner had been suspended on the basis of an FIR in the year 2013, for charges of misappropriation of funds. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging his suspension, but before its resolution, he was dismissed from service.
The petitioner assailed his dismissal on the ground that the Enquiry Officer had not afforded him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the reply of the petitioner to the charge-sheet was not accorded any consideration. Further case of the petitioner was that the copies of the complaint allegedly made against the petitioner and relied upon by the respondents were not supplied to him nor was he allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and as such, the enquiry was bad in the eyes of law and is liable to the set aside.
Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Nargal noted that the petitioner has not thrown any challenge either to the chargesheet or for that matter the inquiry proceedings. The bench also said that allegation of petitioner that the inquiry officer did not afford him reasonable opportunity to defend himself falls flat in the light of the original record produced by the respondent-Bank.
Pointing out to the fact that the copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner, the bench observed that after having accepted the inquiry report and the findings arrived at by the officer, the petitioner is estopped under law to question the imposition of the penalty by the disciplinary authority which is an offshoot of the recommendations given by the inquiry officer wherein all the charges against the petitioner stood proved.
Expounding further on the matter the court said that the findings of the inquiry officer has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and Court cannot act as an Appellate Court to go into the findings arrived by the inquiry officer in absence of any specific challenge to the same.
"I uphold the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as the petitioner has betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the local customers and the petitioner had transgressed the scope of his duties as a peon and caused a serious dent to the reputation of Bank. The major punishment imposed on the petitioner is strictly in conformity with Regulation 39 of Bank Regulations and commensurate to the gravity of charges leveled against him," the Court said.
Case Title: Muneer Ahmad Paswal Vs Union of India.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 132
Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. A.H.Naik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Zia, Advocate.
Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Altaf Haqani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Asif Wani, Advocate. Ms. Rehana Qayoom vice Mr.T.M.Shamsi, DSGI.