D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent no.1 in writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.798 of 1998 (R), which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the punishment of dismissal, and the punishment of stoppage of one increment for the charge nos.7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 1516, was upheld and 50% back wages have also been allowed, and therefore, respondent - bank has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix :- Respondent No.1 (original petitioner) was serving with the Kshetriya Gramin Bank as a Manager. Charge-sheet was issued on 18.08.1992 upon the respondent no.1 (original petitioner). There are several charges levelled against the respondent no.1. So far as charge no.1 is concerned, which was pertaining to the payment of cash against the withdrawal slip, despite the fact that the signature of the withdrawal slip was entirely different, from that of specimen signature. So far as charge no.2 is concerned, loan was sanctioned by the respondent no.1 (original petitioner) for a furniture shop, despite the fact that no furniture shop was ever existed or established. No quotation, copy of bill etc., was produced. No margin money was stipulated in the loan account. Signature of the borrower of the loan differs from the signature on the saving bank account of the borrower. There was no pre-sanction inspection report. Post-sanction inspection was not carried out to ensure the end use of the loan amount. Ultimately, practically recovery was nil, for the aforesaid loan. No follow up was made for the recovery of the loan. So far as charge no.3 is concerned, the respondent No.1 purchased a cheque No.488792 dated 21.01.1991 and the amount was deposited in his own personal bank account. Normally, such type of cheques cannot be purchased by the Manager of the bank, unless permission is obtained from the Head Office. So far as charge no.4 is concerned, loan amount was sanctioned to one of the customers who was an illiterate. Whenever, any illiterate customer is given a loan, photograph of the said customer was to be obtained while opening the bank account. No such photograph was attested when saving account of such customer was opened and loan was sanctioned. Later on, photograph of one Radhiya Devi, wife of Shri Bhodhua Turi was obtained, whereas the loan was sanctioned in the name of Smt. Radhiya Devi, wife of Shri Bhigua Turi. Thus, loan was sanctioned in the name of 'A' whereas photograph of 'B' was taken on record that too later on, after the loan was sanctioned. Thus, photograph of different woman was taken. In the loan papers, age of lonee was mentioned as 35 years whereas photograph of a lady aged about 25 years, was taken on record. Thus, there was wrong disbursement of the loan. Lonee has not honoured repayment obligation and thereby there was a financial loss to the bank. Bank was not in a position to proceed with the recovery. So far as charge no.5 is concerned, loan and subsidy was sanctioned in favour of one customer for purchase of one pump set without any quotation, bill, stamped receipt obtained from the dealer. Delivery order was undated. The delivery was given by M/S J. K. Enterprises, Simaria, but, there was no unit of dealer at Simaria at all. The amount of loan and subsidy was credited in the name of different dealer than the dealer whose name was mentioned on the delivery order, i.e., the delivery order was by M/S J. K. Enterprises, Simaria whereas the actual payment was made to M/s. Jyoti Electronics. There are several other irregularities mentioned in the charge-sheet. Charge-sheet is at Anexure - 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Similarly, there are 18 charges which are pertaining to grave misconduct committed by this respondent No.1 (original petitioner). Enquiry officer was appointed. Enquiry was conducted at length after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the respondent No.1- delinquent. Enquiry officer has held that charge nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 and 12, is not proved. Charge no.13 is partly proved and charge no.14 seems to have been proved. The disciplinary authority was not in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer, and hence, detail notice was given dated 27.06.1994 (Annexure - 3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Reply was given by the respondent No.1 (original petitioner) and the disciplinary authority has arrived at a conclusion that charge nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18, are proved. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 27.09.1994 imposed the punishment of dismissal for the charges which are proved and they are charge nos.7, 11, 12, 13, and 15. The disciplinary authority has further imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment for the charges proved which are charge nos.2, 3 and 5. One more punishment was inflicted by the disciplinary authority, i.e., degradation of increment by ten scales. This order was also challenged by the respondent No.1- delinquent before the Departmental Appellate Authority. The Departmental Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 10.07.10995. The said order is at Annexure - A to the counter affidavit filed by this Respondent No.1 (original petitioner) has challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 27.09.1994, but, not appellate order. The learned Single Judge in writ petition being C.W.J.C No.798 of 1998 (R) has allowed the petition partly mainly on the ground that the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the respondent No.1 - delinquent was shockingly disproportionate, and hence, the order of punishment of dismissal and degradation of 10 scales, was quashed and set aside and punishment of stoppage of one increment was upheld mainly on the ground that even though the aforesaid charges have been held as proved, there is no financial loss to the bank. The golden thread running throughout in the judgment is that no financial loss is caused to the bank, despite the punishments are proved, and hence, the respondent bank has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellants : I. Counsel appearing for the appellant (original respondents in the writ petition) has submitted that there are serious charges against this respondent no.1 and they have been held as proved even by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that every time financial loss to the bank need not to be seen at all. Whenever a bank employee is dealing with the customer of the bank, higher degree of honesty, integrity and devotion is required even though there is no pecuniary loss to the bank. If the signatures are not tallying properly and the amount is paid to the customer, this tentamounts to a grave misconduct. Loans have been sanctioned and several irregularities have been committed by this respondent No.1 - delinquent. Everything cannot be measured in terms of loss of money. The prestige of the bank ought to have been kept in mind. Sometimes loss of prestige is costlier than the financial loss. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1 - delinquent. II. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that time and again Hon'ble the Supreme Court has delivered judgment that whenever the bank employee is dealing with the customer the honesty, integrity and devotion to the duty has to be maintained by the bank employee even though, there is no pecuniary loss to the bank. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has relied on the following decisions:- (a) (1996) 9 SCC 69; (b) (1998) 7 SCC 84; (c) (2001) 9 SCC 609; (d) (2003) 4 SCC 364; (e) (2005) 6 SCC 321; (f) (2007) 9 SCC 15; and (g) 2010 (4) JLJR (SC) 81. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that even though no pecuniary loss has been caused to the bank, the punishment cannot be interfered with by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. III. Looking to the proved misconduct, punishment inflicted by this appellant upon the respondent no.1- delinquent cannot be levelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment nor it can be levelled as unreasonably excessive punishment. Too much leniency cannot be shown by this Court hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, deserves to be quashed and set aside. IV. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the aforesaid decisions even though, there is no pecuniary loss for the proved misconduct of the respondent No.1, punishment inflicted by this appellant of dismissal was absolutely in consonance with the nature of the misconduct. Even looking to the several charges, there is pecuniary loss to the bank, as stated in detail at Annexure-1 of the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.798 of 1998(R) dated 28.09.2012, deserves to be quashed and set aside.;