GENERAL MANAGER(OPERATION1)/ APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UCO BANK VS KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ
GENERAL MANAGER(OPERATION1)/ APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UCO BANK VS KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1458 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 13615 of 2021)
GENERAL MANAGER(OPERATION1)/
APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
UCO BANK & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 19th February, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Allahabad setting aside the disciplinary proceedings and
consequential punishment inflicted upon the respondent initiated
pursuant to the chargesheet dated 15th May, 1993.
1
3. The respondent while working as an officiating Manager and
posted at Taharpur, Bhabisa, Muzaffarnagar, committed gross
irregularities in discharge of his duties and for the alleged
misconduct, he was served with the chargesheet along with the
articles of charges/statement of allegations dated 15th May, 1993
under Regulation 6 of the UCO Bank Officers Employees’(Conduct)
Regulations, 1976(hereinafter being referred to as the “Regulations
1976”). The articles of charges followed with the statement of
allegations served upon the respondent delinquent dated 15th May,
1993 are reproduced hereunder:
“Head Office
10, B.T.M. Sarani,
Brabourne Road,
Calcutta700001
UCO
Bank
Phone: Office 246432
246365,
248947
233997
Fax 0522245432
Gram: "AGM UCO"
STD CODE : 0522
Zonal Office 23, Vidhan Sabha Marg,
Lucknow226 001 (U.P.)
ARTICLES OF CHARGES
Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj, PFM No.23213, while functioning as Manager of Taharpur Bhabisa
branch had indulged in several acts of omission and commission for which he is
hereby charged as under:
1) He had opened two S.B. account Nos. 3646 and 3647 on 24.12.91 without
obtaining proper introduction and completion of necessary formalities. He thus
failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, diligence and
devotion. This was violation of Regulation (3) of UCO Bank Officers Employees'
(Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
2
2) While depositing huge amount of Bank's cash in the currency chest branch at
Meerut, he did not follow the procedure laid down in the Bank's Manual of
Instructions (Cash) and also deviated from the past practice followed by the
branch for such cash remittances. He thus failed to discharge his duties with
utmost honesty, integrity, diligence and devotion. This was violation of Regulation
(3) of UCO Bank Officers Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
3) By opening the two accounts without getting proper introduction, allowing huge
transactions therein, issuing false certificates he facilitated unscrupulous persons
to derive pecuniary benefits under Govt. amnesty schemes to which they were not
entitled. He thus, failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity,
diligence and devotion. This was violation of Regulation (3) of UCO Bank Officers
Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
4) Shri Bhardwaj remained absent from his duties for a period of several months
without proper sanction of leave, as per Bank's rules. He thus failed to discharge
his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, diligence and devotion. This was
violation of Regulation (3) of UCO Bank Officers Employees' (Conduct)
Regulations, 1976.
Sd/
Zonal Manager
(Disciplinary Authority)”
10, B.T.M. Sarani,
Brabourne Road,
Calcutta700001
UCO
Bank
Phone: Office 246432
246365,
248947
233997
Fax 0522245432
Gram: "AGM UCO"
STD CODE : 0522
Zonal Office 23, Vidhan Sabha Marg,
Lucknow226 001 (U.P.)
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj (PFM No.23213) was earlier posted as Manager of Taharpur
Bhabisa branch. During his tenure as Manager of the said branch, he had indulged
in various acts of omission and commission. The details of such acts are given below:
1) While working as Manager of the Taharpur Bhabisa branch, he had opened two
S.B. accounts bearing Nos. 3646 and 3647, on 24.12.91 in the names of Shri Ashok
Kumar Sharma and Shri Narender Goel as stated in the relative account opening
forms, without proper introduction. However, the names of the account holders were
written as Ashok Sharma and Narender Kumar Goel in the ledger. For opening these
two accounts, Mr. Bhardwaj had for unknown reasons, obtained more than .one set
of account opening forms against each of the two accounts. The accounts were
3
apparently introduced by one Mr. Yameen and one Mr. Akshay Kumar whose
signatures were not verified. Mr. Bhardwaj did not make discreet enquiries about the
identity of the persons before opening the accounts. The accounts were opened and
huge transactions were allowed to be conducted through the accounts. Later, it was
revealed that the names of the account holders were fictitious. On 14.1.92, one of the
two account holders known to the Bank's staff as Narender Kumar Goel called on the
branch; asked for the Manager and asserted that Rs. 15 lacs given by him to the
Manager for depositing with the Meerut currency chest branch of the Bank, has not
been deposited by him.
2) While depositing cash in the currency chest at Meerut on 24.12.91, amounting to
Rs. 24 lac and Rs. 20 lac on 1.192, Mr. Bhardwaj did not follow the procedure laid
down in the Bank's Manual of Instructions (Cash) and also deviated from the practice
followed by the branch to remit cash through a clerk/peon and armed guard of
Kandhla branch. The transactions relating to the two accounts mentioned in para1
above, were personally handled by Mr. Bhardwaj right from the stage of receiving the
cash from the account holders to the stage of depositing the cash in the currency
chest at Meerut.
3) The Income Tax Department had sent a letter to Taharpur Bhabisa branch
enclosing therewith photo copies of three certificates, all dated 4.1.92, favouring Mr.
Pawan Vir Singh, Mrs. Sarjit Kaur and Mrs. Jyoti Sachdeva which were issued by
Taharpur bhabisa branch under signatures of Mr. K.K. Bhrdwaj, Manager. In the
certificates the accounts were stated to be NRE accounts which was not correct, as
there were no such NRE accounts at the branch.
The Directorate of Investigation, New Delhi had conducted search u/s 132 of IT
Act, of SB A/c No. 3646 and 3647 in the names of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma and
Shri Narender Goel respectively with UCO Bank, Taharpur Bhabisa. It was found that
there was a balance of Rs. 95,500 / in the account of Shri Narender Kumar Goel and
Rs.3,17,000/ in the account of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma. The total amount of
Rs.4,12,500/ in these accounts was subsequently seized vide Panchnama dated
8.4.1992.
The ledger of the Bank shows that Shri Narender Goel had deposited
Rs.21,00,000/ on Dec. 24, 1991 and Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma had deposited
Rs.7,00,000 / on 4.1. 92 and Rs. 20,00,000/ on 24.12.91 in the Bank. The money
was withdrawn from these accounts by getting DDs issued in favour of various
persons. During an enquiry by the Directorate of Investigation, it was found that the
Demand drafts were issued in the names of persons who were residents of Delhi and
these drafts were allegedly claimed to have been made from the NonResident
(External) accounts. The persons who had received these drafts claimed exemption
under the amnesty scheme which was in force upto 31.3.1992 under which any
draft/ gift received from Non Resident External accounts had immunity from Income
Tax.
In spite of best efforts, the Directorate of Investigation could not trace the
persons in whose names the accounts were these. The letters sent to them on the
address available in Bank's record came back with the remark that those persons did
not exist. Also nothing could be made out from the account opening forms regarding
genuineness of the persons. The Income Tax Department, therefore, reached the
4
conclusion that the accounts were opened in the fictitious names by branch manager
Mr.K.K. Bhardwaj and that the money so deposited was the undisclosed money of the
branch Manager. Accordingly, notice under Rule 112 A read with Section 132(s) of IT
Act was issued by Income Tax Authorities. The reply to the notice was not found
satisfactory by them and the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax accordingly
estimated the undisclosed income as Rs. 48,20,000/. The amount of tax calculated
on the income was Rs. 26,70,800/ and interest payable on the tax was Rs.
2,97,731/. Therefore, the total amount required to satisfy the liability came to Rs.
29,68,531/ . The Asstt. Commissioner accordingly issued orders to retain the seized
amount i.e. Rs. 4,12,500/ as the tax liability was much higher.
Shri K.K. Bhardwaj was responsible for opening the two SB accounts in fictitious
names in an irregular manner, allowing huge transactions therein, issue of
certificates regarding the accounts and all consequences thereof.
4. Shri K.K. Bhardwaj remained absent from duties w.e.f. 9 .1. 92 for a period of
several months without proper sanction of leave, as per Bank's Rules.
Sd/
Zonal Manager
(Disciplinary Authority)”
4. After the inquiry was conducted in terms of the procedure
prescribed under the scheme of Regulations 1976, the inquiry
officer finally held the respondent guilty for charge nos. 1,2 and 3
and charge no. 4 was not found to be proved. The disciplinary
authority, after affording opportunity of hearing and after due
compliance of the principles of natural justice, confirmed the
finding recorded by the inquiry officer in his report dated 30th
September, 1995 held the respondent delinquent guilty and
imposed punishment vide Order dated 12th August, 1996.
5. The extract of order of the disciplinary authority dated 12th
August,1996 is as under:
5
“Now, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by UCO Bank Officer
Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation 1976, I hereby award the
following penalties upon Shri KK Bhardwaj in terms of Regulation4 of the
said regulation :
1. Charge No. 1 Proved : Reduction to lowest stage
in the present time scale.
2. Charge No. 2 Proved : Reduction to lowest stage in
the present time scale, i.e.
the Basic pay be reduced to
Rs.2100/ (in the old Scale)
3. Charge No. 3 Proved: If any claim is raised against
the Bank by the Income Tax
Deptt. it be recovered from
the retiral benefits of Mr.
Bhardwaj, as admissible
to him, as per Bank's rules.
4. Charge No. 4 .. Not proved”
6. On appeal being preferred, the appellate authority while
upholding the guilt in reference to charge nos. 1,2 and 3 modified
the punishment by an Order dated 14th November, 1998. The
relevant part is as under:
“Charge No. 1 ... Proved .. The Basic pay of Shri Bhardwaj
be reduced by 13 stages
from Rs.3660/ to Rs.
2100 (Old Scale, revised
Rs.4250/) plus increments for
passing CAFIB (if any allowed) in
the tire scale of pay for a period
of 2 years w.e.f. 12.8.96. He will
earn increments of pay during
the period of reduction and that
on the expiry of this period, the
reduction will have the effect of
6
postponing his future increments
of pay.
Charge No. 2 ... do doCharge No. 3 do doCharge No. 4 .. Not proved ... Exonerated.
All the punishments will have a concurrent effect.”
7. The order dated 14th November, 1998 inflicting penalty came
to be challenged by the respondent delinquent in a writ petition
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before the learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad.
8. The learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench have
proceeded on the premises as if the appellate authority by its Order
dated 14th November, 1998 held the respondent guilty only in
reference to charge no. 1 and that is the reason for which the
punishment was modified and for charge nos. 2 and 3, the
respondent employee was exonerated.
9. The admitted fact is that the finding of guilt in reference to
charge nos. 1,2 and 3 which was proved by the inquiry officer as
indicated in the report of inquiry was confirmed by the disciplinary
authority and also by the appellate authority and as a matter of
7
fact, the appellate authority while upholding the guilt in reference
to charge nos. 1, 2 and 3 took a lenient view and modified the
punishment vide its Order dated 14th November, 1998. The High
Court had proceeded further and recorded a finding that charge no.
1 was completely vague and better particulars were completely
missing and after holding that charge no.1 was not specific and
clear the respondent was deprived to reply, set aside the
disciplinary proceedings and the order of penalty by its judgment
and order dated 19th February, 2021 which is a subject matter of
challenge in appeal before us.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned
Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court have
proceeded on an assumption that the appellate authority has not
only modified the punishment but has exonerated the respondent
employee from charge nos. 2 and 3 which is factually incorrect and
the record clearly manifests that charge nos. 1,2 and 3 which were
proved by the inquiry officer, after holding inquiry in terms of the
procedure prescribed under the scheme of Regulations 1976, was
confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority and thus, the
8
premise on which the Division Bench has proceeded in passing the
order impugned is not sustainable.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the finding which has
been recorded by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment
that charge no. 1 was vague and does not disclose the material
particulars and that is the reason prejudice has been caused to the
delinquent employee in submitting reply and to present his defence
before the inquiry officer is also factually not substantiated from the
record for the reason that the article of charge no. 1 is specific and
explicit and the delinquent employee had participated in the course
of inquiry at all stages and it was never the case of the respondent
that charge no. 1 was vague or it lacked material particulars or in
the absence of details being furnished to him, fair opportunity of
hearing has been denied or the principles of natural justice have
been violated. In the given circumstances, the interference made by
the High Court in the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered
by this Court.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has
not disputed the factual matrix which has been recorded in
9
reference to charge nos. 1,2 and 3 proved by the inquiry officer and
confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority but further
submits that even from the record of inquiry, the finding which has
been recorded by the disciplinary/appellate authority and
confirmed at all stages still the punishment, in the given
circumstances, which has been inflicted upon him even if examined
from the record of inquiry, is not supported by the material on
record and consequently the punishment inflicted upon him has
been rightly set aside by the High Court.
13. Admittedly, the High Court has proceeded on the premise that
charge no. 1 is proved and the respondent delinquent has been
exonerated in reference to charge nos. 2 & 3 which is factually
incorrect and not supported by the material on record. The option
available with this Court is either to remit the matter back to the
High Court to examine the record of inquiry and decide the matter
afresh in accordance with law or to decide it on merits.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent at this stage, submits that
the disciplinary inquiry is of the year 1993 and the matter if
remitted back to the High Court may cause great prejudice to him
10
and made a humble request to decide the matter on merits since
remitting the matter back at this belated stage may not be in the
interest of the employee.
15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits and
with their assistance perused the material available on record.
16. From the record of inquiry, it clearly manifests that the inquiry
officer, after holding inquiry as per the procedure prescribed under
Regulations, 1976 held charge nos. 1,2 and 3 proved and the
disciplinary as well as appellate authority has confirmed the finding
of guilt of all the three charges. At the same time, punishment was
inflicted by the disciplinary authority after upholding finding of guilt
recorded by the inquiry officer but the appellate authority, while
upholding the finding of guilt, took a lenient view and modified the
punishment by its order dated 14th November, 1998.
17. So far as the scope of judicial review in the matters of
disciplinary inquiry is concerned, it has been settled that the
constitutional courts while exercising their power of judicial review
under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution would not assume the
role of the appellate authority where jurisdiction is circumscribed
11
by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to
manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. At the
same time, the power of judicial review is not analogous to
adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority.
18. It was never the case of the respondent delinquent even before
the High Court that the departmental inquiry was not conducted in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Regulations,
1976 or there was violation of any provision of Regulations, 1976 or
fair opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him in the course of
inquiry or there was violation of the principles of natural justice.
19. We have gone through the record of inquiry with the
assistance of learned counsel and, in our considered view, the
finding which has been recorded by the inquiry officer in reference
to charge nos. 1,2 and 3 is duly supported with the material on
record and after revisiting the record of inquiry, has been confirmed
by the disciplinary/appellate authority. At the same time, while
upholding the guilt of the respondent delinquent, the appellate
authority took a lenient view and modified the punishment by an
Order dated 14th November, 1998.
12
20. So far as the finding which has been recorded by the High
Court in reference to charge no. 1 being vague and unclear, which
has deprived the respondent delinquent in submitting reply is
concerned, it is factually incorrect. The article of charge no. 1 is
clear and specific and leaves no ambiguity in understanding the
delinquent in submitting his response. Even it was never the case
of the respondent that because of charge no. 1 being vague or
unclear, he was unable to submit reply to participate in the course
of inquiry.
21. In our considered view, the premises on which the High Court
has proceeded even in reference to charge no. 1 is unsustainable
and deserves to be set aside.
22. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
judgment of the Division Bench dated 19th February, 2021 is
accordingly set aside. No costs.
23. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
…………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
13
………………………J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 18, 2022
14
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
Comments
Post a Comment