UNITED BANK OF INDIA versus BISWANATH BHATTACHARJEE

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 988 · Decided: 31-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 988
988
UNITED BANK OF INDIA
v.
BISWANATH BHATTACHARJEE
(Civil Appeal No. 8258 of 2009)
JANUARY 31, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Service law – Reinstatement – Respondent-Bank employee was
appointed by the bank, he served as a manager of a bank’s branch
– Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him alleging his
complicity in five major charges during his posting as manager –
Charges related to the non-recording of subsidy amount in subsidy
register; deposit of subsidy in the account of twelve fictitious persons
in connection with the Project of Central Government;
misappropriation of loan and subsidy amount; removal of the
relevant documents to conceal the misappropriation and that the
respondent in connivance with others transferred amounts through
three demand draft bank – Enquiry was conducted – Enquiry officer
found that respondent was guilty of the charges – Disciplinary
Authority accepted the report and terminated his employment –
Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal – Respondent approached
High Court – Writ petition was dismissed by the Single Bench of the
High Court – The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside
the orders of the Appellate and disciplinary authorities – On appeal,
held: In view of evidence of MW 1 and in absence of any
documentary evidence showing that the respondent was having the
primary responsibility to maintain the subsidy register charge of
non-recording of subsidy amount in subsidy register, not proved –
Charge that respondent deposited subsidy in the account of twelve
fictitious persons, Bank had relied on disposition of 7 persons, they
were identified by MW 2 but neither his identity nor the identity of
the 7 persons was proved, additionally there was no material linking
the respondent with the applications of introducing the borrowers,
etc. – No evidence of involvement of the respondent – Charge of
misappropriation of entire loan and subsidy amount was based on
confessional statement, the said documentwas not exhibited and
undeniably it was not signed – Document can bound authors but
not the third parties like respondent – As far as the charge of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
989
removing the documents is concerned, there is no evidence to show
that the respondent has removed them – Charge of transferring
amounts through three demand draft was concerned, there was no
material evidence to suggest the same – Judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court upheld – Respondent reinstated.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. It was seen that MW 1, the management witness,
who deposed about the procedure in the bank, for recording
entries in the subsidy register, clearly stated that at the relevant
time, some entries were made by the respondent, and some by
MMS, who “used to maintain the subsidy register on most
occasions.” He also deposed that it was MMS’s duty as the cashier
to maintain the subsidy register. MMS failed to discharge that
duty. In view of this evidence, and no contrary documentary
evidence casting the primary responsibility to maintain the subsidy
register on the respondent, the impugned judgment, in this court’s
opinion, cannot be faulted with in concluding that there was no
material to prove the first charge against the employee. As
regards the second charge of misappropriation of subsidy amount
from twelve individuals, whose names were fraudulently
introduced, the bank relied on the depositions of seven persons.
They were identified by MW2, himself at the time Pradhan,
Chandabila Gram Panchayat. MW 2’s identity was challenged at
the outset by the respondent; he did not produce any identity
proof. The enquiry officer did not rule on this. The impugned
judgment concluded that in the absence of proof of HB’s identity,
and any independent material, with respect to the seven alleged
beneficiaries, their identity was not independently proved.
Additionally, there had to be some material, linking the employee
(respondent) with the applications, introducing the borrowers,
etc. MW-1, the subsequent manager, clearly deposed in reply to
a query (question no. 8) as to who used to “identify the borrowers”
before sanction and disbursement of IRDP loans, that the
“Pradhan/Member of Gram Panchayat” used to identify the
beneficiaries. Such being the case, the involvement of the
respondent employee had to be shown by more definitive
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. BISWANATH BHATTACHARJEE
A
B
C
D
E

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