Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Termination Of Bank Employee For Mistakenly Crediting Money In Another Account, Says Punishment Too Harsh

Justice Dr. S.N. Pathak observed, “Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, it appears that punishment of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate and as such, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside for the following facts and reasons:

(I) Admittedly, non-supply of relevant documents caused serious prejudiced to the petitioner. It has been admitted by respondents that some of the documents were not available with the respondents and as such, the same could not be supplied to the petitioner.

(II) When a particular document was relied upon by the delinquent, the same was to be served to him seeking his reply. In the case of non-supply of the same, the enquiry report would be termed to be perverse.”

The aforementioned judgment resulted from a Writ Petition filed by Devendra Prasad Yadav, who held the position of Credit Officer at the Ranchi Main Branch of Jharkhand Gramin Bank. The bank's then-manager had lodged two FIRs concerning alleged fraudulent activities within the bank. The first FIR accused three individuals, but Devendra Prasad Yadav was not initially implicated in it.

Later, the same manager filed a second FIR, alleging that a credit had been inappropriately issued to an account associated with Devendra Prasad Yadav. Subsequently, the bank issued a show-cause notice to Devendra Prasad Yadav, requesting an explanation.

However, due to the unavailability of necessary documents from the bank, Devendra Prasad Yadav couldn't respond within the given timeframe. Consequently, he was arrested and suspended by the bank. Another show-cause notice was issued, but unfortunately, Devendra Prasad Yadav was unable to provide a response. Consequently, the bank decided to initiate departmental proceedings against him and served a charge sheet.

Furthermore, the crucial documents needed for a proper defense were not furnished to Devendra Prasad Yadav, and the departmental inquiry eventually found him guilty of the charges. In response to this finding, the Petitioner approached the High Court, challenging the decision.

The petitioner before the court contended that the actions taken by the respondents were illegal, arbitrary, and lacked jurisdiction. The argument put forth was that most of the charges against the petitioner were related to transactions alleged to have taken place a decade ago. During the departmental proceedings, when the petitioner requested the Presenting Officer to provide documents related to these old transactions, the request was denied on the grounds of unavailability in the Branch records.

The petitioner claimed that this failure to provide relevant documents severely prejudiced their case. If these documents had been made available, the petitioner could have better explained the events that occurred a decade ago.

Contrarily, the respondents asserted that the bank had issued a memorandum to the petitioner, seeking an explanation. The petitioner responded to this memorandum. However, dissatisfied with the petitioner's reply and considering the seriousness of the alleged offense, which could result in substantial financial losses for the bank, the decision was made to initiate departmental proceedings. In these proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty, leading to the issuance of a dismissal order by the Disciplinary Authority.

Regarding the second show-cause notice, the respondents argued that the inquiry report was provided to the petitioner. Hence, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The Appellate Authority also concluded that the petitioner was not denied natural justice, and no decision was affected due to prejudice against the petitioner.

Considering the arguments of both sides, the Court observed that it is settled legal propositions that issuance of 2nd show-cause notice along with copy of enquiry report is sine qua non and inflicting the punishment that also of dismissal, without seeking reply by way of 2nd show-cause notice, is not tenable in the eyes of law.

The Court observed, "(III) Petitioner had an unblemished service career of 27 long years but the same was not considered by the respondents while inflicting punishment upon him. The respondents ought to have considered his unblemished service career of 27 long years which does not warrant at least major punishment of dismissal.

(IV) The respondents have admitted that 2nd show-cause notice was not served along with enquiry report rather, it was argued that since enquiry report was served there was no requirement of issuance of 2nd show-cause notice."

Finding the punishment of dismissal as too harsh, the Court quashed the impugned orders. Further, finding the arguments of the bank as totally misconceived and not in consonance with law, the Court accordingly remitted the matter back to Respondents to consider the case of Petitioner for inflicting lesser punishment.

Counsel/s For the Petitioner: Mr. L.C.N. Shahedeo, Advocate Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate

Counsel/s For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 72

Case Title: Devendra Prasad Yadav v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(S). No. 1432 of 2016

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement