SURESH PATHRELLA versus ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SURESH PATHRELLA 
v. 
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Termination-Misappropriation of funds of customer by Bank Officer-
Dismissal after giving opportunity to cross-examine the witness and obtaining 
C opinion of handwriting expert-Challenge against-Held, judicial review 
not warranted as dismissal not tainted with ma/a fides nor in violation of 
principle of natural justice-Officer had acted beyond his authority in breach 
of Bank's Regulation-It is a case of loss of confidence in officer by Bank-
Fact that no loss caused to bank not a ground to take lenient view for proved 
misconduct-Administrative law-Judicial review-Oriental Bank of 
D Commerce Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1982-Regulation 3(1). 
E 
Disciplinary proceeding vis-a-vis criminal trial-Acquittal in criminal 
case would not negate the findings in disciplinary proceeding, as standard 
of proof is different in both-Criminal trial. 
The appellant was a Chief Manager of the Respondent-Bank. A charge 
sheet was filed against him on the ground of misappropriation of funds of a 
customer of the Respondent-Bank. The charge-sheet stated that the 
Respondent-Bank had received a Pay Order of Rs. I 0 lacs sent by one party 
in favour of Customer 'G' for crediting it.to his account. The appellant with 
p malafide intention opened a saving account in the name of 'G' who already 
had a saving account and credited the proceeds to the newly opened account. 
Thereafter, appellant with his own handwriting signed some vouchers 
transferring Rs. IO lacs to three parties. The new account was closed on the 
same day. 
G 
Enquiry Officer found him guilty. Disciplinary Authority accepted the 
finding of Enquiry Officer and dismissed appellant from service. Appellant 
filed writ petition before the High Court. Single Judge held that the Bank 
had not suffered any loss and that the main allegation of misappropriation of 
Rs.IO lacs was the crux in both departmental proceedings and the criminal 
H 
SM 
.• 
SU RESH PA TH RELLA r. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE 
565 
charge and that the police after investigation had closed the case as unfounded, A 
therefore, nothing substantial remained in the matter for proceedings against 
the appellant. On appeal, Division Bench of High Court held that the transfer 
of funds to the credit of three parties without any instruction from the 
beneficiary amounts to misappropriation of funds and showed lack of devotion 
to duty and integrity on the part of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The findings recorded by the Single Judge are fallacious. 
This Court has taken the view consistently that acquittal in a criminal case 
would be no bar for drawing up a disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent C 
officer. The yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different 
from the disciplinary proceeding. While the standard of proof in a criminal 
case is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental 
proceeding is preponderance of probabilities. 1570-C-D] 
2.1. It is not the case of the appellant that the enquiry has been D 
conducted without affording an opportunity to him or behind his back and 
thereby violated the principles of natural justice. 1570-D] 
2.2. The appellant after obtaining adverse statement against him in 
cross-examination did not further cross-examine 'G' by confronting him with 
the alleged signature of 'G'. At the close of the enquiry, the appellant himself E 
requested the enquiry officer to obtain the opinion of a handwriting expert. It 
was done by him to test the denial of the statement of'G' in cross-examination. 
The report so obtained confirmed the statement of 'G' in cross-examination. 
The appellant could not impeach the statement of 'G' in cross-examination 
that he never gave any letter of authority for transfer of funds from one account 
to another account. He had never issued any receipt of Rs.10 lacs towards F 
the disposal of any property to Mis Morada bad Builders. The appellant has 
accepted the statement of 'G '. The handwriting expert confirmed the statement 
of 'G' in cross-examination. No prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused to the 
appellant by non-furnishing of the copy of the handwriting expert confirming 
the statement of 'G' in cross- examination. There is no allegation of malafides, G 
bias or violation of principles of natural just

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.