C.V. Joseph v. Syndicate Bank and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/16TH SRAVANA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 1738 of 2007 (F) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **---------------------** **C.V.JOSEPH, AGED 58, S/O. C.P. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT K.P.IV/50, CHOOZHAMPALA, MUKKOLA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, FORMERLY WORKING AS BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, PUNALUR BRANCH.** **BY SRI.MATHAI M PAIKADAY,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS.SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G SMT. LILA SIMON SRI.JOSE THOMAS** **RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------** **1. SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER (P) HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL.** **2. GENERAL MANAGER (P), SYNDICATE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL.** **3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P), SYNDICATE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL.** ## **4. D. PADMANABHAN,** **THE REGIONAL MANAGER & ENQUIRY OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR.** ## **5. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,** ## **SYNDICATE BANK, CORPORATE OFFICE, BANGALORE.** **R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 1738 of 2007 (F)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1 COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 16/08/2004 ISSUED BY SENIOR MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK TO THE PETITIONER.** - **P2 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY ASST. MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK TO THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK.** - **P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/9/2004 SENT BY SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK TO THE REGIONAL MANAGER, PREMISES & MAINTENANCE CELL.** - **P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/10/2004 SENT BY SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK TO THE REGIONAL MANAGER, SECURITY CELL.** - **P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/6/2005 SENT BY JOINT CUSTODIAN, FORT BRANCH TO THE SENIOR BANK MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK** - **P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/6/2005 SENT BY JOINT CUSTODIANS, FORT BRANCH, TO THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK.** - **P7 COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 2/7/2005** - **P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK TO THE PETITIONER.** - **P9 COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 1/12/2005 FRAMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY.** - **P10 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2005 OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P), DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, SYNDICATE BANK TO THE PETITIONER.** - **P11 COPY OF THE BRIEF DATED 4/4/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESENTING OFFICER ON BEHALF OF THE BANK** - **P12 COPY OF THE WRITTEN BRIEF PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DATED 19/4/2006** - **P13 COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 16/5/2006 OF THE INQUIRY AUTHORITY** - **P14 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/7/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **2/-** **-2-** **WP(C).No. 1738 of 2007 (F)** - **P15 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 16/8/2006 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER, SYNDICATE BAN WHO IS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY** - **P16 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, SYNDICATE BAN WHO IS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NO.50/PD:IRD/DA-7 DATED 3/10/2006** - **P17 COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30/10/2006** - **P18 COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING REVIEW PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER DATED 30/10/2006** - **P19 COPY OF THE KEY HANDLING REGISTER SHOWING DETAILS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 10/1/2005 TO 5/8/2005.** - **P20 COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 30/5/2005** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.** ------------------------------------ ## W.P. (C) No.1738 of 2007 ------------------------------------ ## Dated this the 7[th] day of August, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, while working as Manager of the Fort Branch of the Syndicate Bank, was proceeded under the disciplinary proceedings. Based on the enquiry, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him. He appealed against that decision before the appellate authority which was unsuccessful. Challenging the decision of the appellate authority, the petitioner approached this Court. 2. The Fort Branch of the Syndicate Bank is having accounts belonged to Padmanabha Swamy Temple and Pazhavangadi Ganapathy Temple. The collections of these temples are brought in large quantity to the Bank, mainly in different denominations of coins. The Bank functions in a two storied building. The upper portion is occupied by the Manager. In the downstairs, the sub-staff and others are placed. It was reported that a sum of Rs.10.78 lakhs is missing from the Bank. **W.P.(C) No.1738/2007** **2** This missing amount are the missing coins deposited by the temple authorities. Consequently, the petitioner was charge sheeted for nine charges, and eight charges were proved against the petitioner. All the charges would show that there are serious lapses on the part of the petitioner in discharging his duties. The supervisory lapse caused the Bank huge loss as above. 3. The petitioner's case before this Court is that administrative lapses and laches during the routine course of the business cannot be termed as misconduct to proceed under the disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed is not based on the severity of the misconduct proved. Therefore, interference is called for. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank would submit that the scope of judicial review is limited. This Court cannot sit up on decision as an appellate authority by scanning the evidence and decide the matter. It is further submitted that there were materials on record to link the petitioner with the misconduct alleged against him. Learned counsel relied on the judgments in _**Balbir Chand** vs._ _**Food Corporation of India Ltd and others**_ ((1997) 3 SCC 371), _**Chairman and Managing Director,**_ **W.P.(C) No.1738/2007** **3** _**United Commercial Bank and others** vs._ _**P.C. Kakkar**_ ((2003) 4 SCC 364), _**V. Ramana** vs._ _**A.P.SRTC and others**_ ((2005) 7 SCC 338) and in _**State Bank of India and another** vs._ _**Bela Bagchi and others**_ ((2005) 7 SCC 435). 5. The enquiry report is produced as Ext.P13. The petitioner was a joint custodian of the keys. He had given the coin packets to one Latha, sub-staff for sorting and also for making smaller packets of 100 denominations. The missing of the coins happened during the petitioner's tenure as the Manager and the custodian. It is found out that the petitioner did not make necessary safeguards to ensure that no pilferage takes place. The enquiry officer had considered all the aspects in the matter and also analysed the evidence. He noted that there is exchange of coins to some of the firms in Thiruvananthapuram and there was complete failure in exercising the power of control over such exchange, which means in the guise of exchange, pilferage was allowed to happen. It is also noted that Latha, substaff, was taken out the coins for exchange without getting it properly accounted for. There was also failure on the part of the petitioner to monitor and supervise whether coins were taken by **W.P.(C) No.1738/2007** **4** Latha to other branches. 6. As noted above, there were evidence and materials before the enquiry officer to conclude that there was supervisory laches and lapses on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, it is beyond the scope of interference of this Court sitting upon in exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer. 7. The next point to be considered is whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the severity of the misconduct proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in _**Rajendra Yadav** vs._ _**State of M.P and others**_ (2013 KHC 4118), submitted that action of the disciplinary authority imposing harsher punishment is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case especially when the petitioner's conduct does not amount to any criminal offence. It is pointed out that the laches and lapses do not have the overtone of any criminal offence. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that the Bank had taken a lenient view in the matter and imposed **W.P.(C) No.1738/2007** **5** only compulsory retirement with all retiral benefits. It is also submitted that the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused in a criminal case. The petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation. He is out of service for the last more than a decade. There were no interim orders in the matter. Even if the petitioner's case is considered for reinstatement, no purpose would be served. Since the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement with all retiral benefits, this Court is of the view that the punishment imposed need not be interfered with. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- **A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE** smp