A excessive commonplace of integrity and honesty is anticipated of financial institution staff since they take care of the cash of the general public, and it will solely be applicable to take away from service any such worker discovered responsible of misappropriation, the Madras Excessive Court docket has held.
A Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan allowed a writ enchantment filed by State Financial institution of India (SBI) and reversed an order handed by a single choose, who had put aside the punishment imposed on an worker, ordering the fee of all service advantages to him.
“When the respondent (M. Palaniappan) had acted prejudicial to the curiosity of the client, which will even erode the general public belief over the financial institution… we’re of the thought-about view that the punishment imposed just isn’t disproportionate or surprising our conscience; somewhat, it’s proportionate to the costs,” the Bench wrote.
SBI counsel Chevanan Mohan dropped at the discover of the court docket that the worker was recruited as a clerk in 1998 and posted as an assistant on the Karaikudi department in 2002. He had then acquired a cheque issued by a NRE (Non Resident – Exterior) account holder of the financial institution.
The cheque for ₹15,000 had been issued by the account holder, Jan Batcha, in favour of Ghouse Myan. As a substitute of directing Mr. Myan to the cashier for encashing the cheque, the assistant despatched him away, stating it will take just a few days to attract the cash from the account.
The assistant, nonetheless, produced the cheque earlier than the cashier on the identical day and acquired the cash by affixing his signature in the back of the cheque leaf. When Mr. Myan returned to the financial institution just a few days later, the assistant insisted that he await just a few extra days and gave him ₹4,000 alone.
When the observe continued, Mr. Myan lodged a grievance with the financial institution supervisor, resulting in a departmental inquiry. Aside from the cost of fraudulent encashment of the cheque, the assistant was additionally charged with not reporting for work on time and absenting himself unauthorisedly after lunch hours.
The fees stood proved within the inquiry, after which he was dismissed from service with out discover in 2004. Nonetheless, on enchantment, the appellate authority modified the punishment to discharge from service. The assistant challenged each the orders in 2005.
Permitting his 2005 writ petition on February 7, 2020, the only choose had put aside the punishment and directed SBI to offer him all financial and consequential advantages by contemplating him to have continued in service until the age of superannuation. This order was challenged by SBI in 2021.
Disposing of the 2021 enchantment now, the Division Bench disagreed with the only choose’s view and mentioned courts mustn’t reappraise the proof in disciplinary proceedings and that their position was restricted to the extent of discovering out whether or not the inquiry was carried out in a good and correct method.
“When an enquiry is discovered to be truthful and correct, then it’s for the disciplinary authority to resolve on the punishment to be imposed on delinquent. The courts, in judicial evaluate, should solely see whether or not the choice making course of was right and never the correctness of the choice itself,” Justice Murugan wrote.
Revealed – October 05, 2024 12:44 pm IST