THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) PUNJAB & SINO BANK & ORS. versus DAYA SINGH

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 71 · Decided: 28-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 71 
THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) PUNJAB & SINO BANK & 
A 
ORS. 
• 
v. 
DAYA SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 2007) 
JULY 28, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law - Dismissal - Allegation of misconduct -
Against Bank Manager - Misconduct proved - Punishment C 
of dismissal from service and recovery of pecuniary loss by 
the authorities concerned - Writ petition - Allowed by High 
Court - On appeal, Held: The finding of Inquiry Officer was 
based on documentary evidence and was well reasoned -
There was no violation of principles of natural justice - Scope 
D 
of judicial review in departmental disciplinary matter is limited 
- Once the charges were found to have been established, 
interference of High Court not correct - Punjab and Sind Bank 
Officers/Employers (Conduct) Regulations, 1981 - Regulation 
24 - Punjab and Sind Bank Officers/Employees (Discipline 
E 
and Appeal) Regulations, 1997 - Principles of Natural Justice 
- Judicial Review. 
Respondent-Manager in the appellant-Bank, was 
charge-sheeted by the appellant-Bank. The allegations 
against him were that he sanctioned demand loans 
against twenty non-existent FDRs to fictitious persons 
without any security; that he left the Branch without 
handing over the charge of articles and documents; that 
he left the station of posting without authorization; that 
F 
he stood a guarantor to the loan sanctioned to a 
G 
Company without prior permission of the competent 
authority; and that he stood as guarantor to the loan 
taken by his wife from another Bank without prior 
71 
H 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A permission. Inquiry Officer held that all the charges were 
proved. Disciplinary Authority concurring with the 
findings of the Inquiry Officer, held that the respondent 
committed the misconduct under clause 3(1) and 15(v) r/ 
w Regulation No. 24 of the Punjab and Sind Bank 
B Officers/Employers (Conduct) Regulations, 1981. The 
penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of 
pecuniary loss under Punjab and Sind Bank Officers/ 
Employees (Discipline and appeal) Regulations, 1997, 
was imposed. The appellate authority confirmed the 
c order. 
All the three orders were challenged in the writ 
petition. High Court set aside the impugned orders 
holding that the documents produced were neither 
detailed nor their nature was explained; that there was 
D no discussion or analysis of the evidence presented; that 
absence of reason was in violation of principles of 
natural justice. High Court directed the Bank to reinstate 
the respondent for holding the inquiry afresh. The instant 
E 
appeal was filed by the Bank. 
The respondent contended that the documents did 
not establish the misconduct; and that no borrower had 
been examined in support of the allegations against him. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1 The appellant-Bank had taken the 
necessary steps to establish the misconduct before the 
inquiry officer. The relevant documents including ledger 
entries were produced through the concerned witnesses. 
The respondent fully participated in the inquiry. He had 
G no explanation to offer during the course of the inquiry 
or any time thereafter. When all the relevant entries were 
in the handwriting of the respondent, the Bank did not 
think it necessary to call the borrowers. In fact, as the 
inquiry officer states, the respondent should have 
H produced the borrowers if he wanted to contend anything 
GENERAL MANAGER (P) PUNJAB & SINO BANK & 73 
ORS. v. DAYA SINGH 
against the documentary evidence produced by the 
A 
Bank. In the circumstances, the conclusions arrived at by 
the inquiry officer could not have been held as without 
any evidence in support. The High Court has clearly erred 
in holding that the documents produced were neither 
detailed nor their nature was explained. [Para 16] [82-H; 
B 
83-A-C] 
1.2 There was clear documentary evidence on record 
in the handwriting of the respondent which established 
his role in the withdrawal of huge amounts for fictitious 
C 
persons. The ledger entries clearly showed that whereas 
the FDRs were in one name, the withdrawals were shown 
in the name of altogether different persons and they were 
far in excess over the amounts of FDRs. The respondent 
had no explanation and, therefore, it had to be held that 
the respondent had misappropriated the amount. lnspite 
D 
of a well-reasoned order by the Inquiry Officer, the High 
Court has interfered ther

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