Public Documents Need Not Be Proved By Authors In Disciplinary Enquiry: Patna High Court Dismisses Bank Officer’s Plea Against Dismissal
The Court dismissed a bank officer’s writ petition against dismissal from service, holding that the departmental enquiry was supported by supplied documents, oral evidence, and undisputed public records relating to alleged fake JLKCC loan accounts.
Justice Harish Kumar, Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has held that public documents and loan account application forms whose authenticity is not disputed need not be proved by their authors in a bank disciplinary enquiry, particularly where all documents relied upon by the management were supplied to the charged officer.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a former Branch Manager of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, challenging his dismissal from service and the rejection of his departmental appeal, after charges were held proved against him in relation to the sanction and disbursement of 44 alleged fake Joint Liability Kisan Credit Card loan accounts.
A Bench of Justice Harish Kumar, while rejecting the plea that the enquiry stood vitiated for want of proof by authors of every document, observed:
“It is not the case of the petitioner that the documents on which the Bank management has placed reliance in order to sustain the charges have not been handed over to him, rather copy of the proceedings which have been brought on record clearly suggest that all the documents and even the documents which have been demanded by the petitioner have been handed over to him. Since some of the documents, including the electoral roll of concerned Ward/Panchayat as well as the application forms of the loan accounts, were either public documents and or authenticity of which have not been disputed, hence contents of which are not required to be proved by its author.”
Senior Advocate Shivendra Kishore appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Prabhakar Jha appeared for Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank.
Background
The petitioner was serving as Branch Manager when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation, 2010. The charge was that he had flouted financing norms, failed in KYC and pre-sanction verification, and fraudulently sanctioned and disbursed loans to fake borrowers under the JLKCC Scheme.
The petitioner argued that the charge-sheet did not contain a proper list of documents or witnesses, that prosecution documents had not been supplied despite demand, and that the enquiry finding was based on no evidence. He relied on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009), State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010), Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1999), and other authorities to contend that documents must be proved through oral evidence.
The Bank, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner, as Branch Manager, was responsible for verifying genuineness of borrowers and KYC documents. It submitted that the investigation report found tampering in voter identity documents used as KYC, that the borrowers were not found at the recorded addresses, and that the management witness who prepared the report was examined and cross-examined during enquiry.
Court’s Observations
The Court first reiterated that writ jurisdiction in disciplinary matters does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as if the High Court were sitting in appeal. Referring to State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao (1963), B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995), State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011), and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015), the Court noted that interference is limited to cases of procedural illegality, violation of natural justice, perversity, or findings based on no evidence.
The Court stated: “In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal [Vide: Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364]. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”
The Court found that the management had produced eight documents along with copies of all 44 loan documents demanded by the petitioner. It also noted that the officer who prepared the investigation report was examined as a management witness and cross-examined by the petitioner.
The Court observed: “The management also produced Sri Goutam Govind as a witness to prove the contents of the report, who was duly examined by the Presenting Officer and cross-examined by the petitioner, in respect of his finding/investigation report. The petitioner has also taken the plea in the writ petition that copies of the prosecution documents were not provided despite calling for the same. However, the same does not find to be correct in view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as recorded in the minutes of the proceeding dated 26.04.2019, which clearly suggests that all the necessary documents including 44 applications of loan account have been handed over to the petitioner. Moreover it is not specifically disclosed as to which document called for by the petitioner has not been handed over to him and thereby any prejudice has been caused. Such plea of the petitioner appears to be unfounded.”
The Court also found that the Mukhiya’s certificate was corroborated by the electoral roll, whose authenticity had not been disputed by the petitioner.
Rejecting the plea that the burden was wrongly shifted to the petitioner, the Court held that the central question was whether fair opportunity had been granted in the departmental proceeding.
The Court stated: “Hence, the plea canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that onus of disapproving the charge has been wrongly shifted upon the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid facts, does not persuade this Court. What is required to be looked into is as to whether in a departmental proceeding the delinquent has been afforded fair opportunity and the rules of natural justice are followed. After careful consideration of the enquiry report, and the minutes of the proceedings, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner has all along been provided proper and adequate opportunity of hearing and at no stage of enquiry he has been deprived of his right to defend his case resulting into any violation of the principles of natural justice.”
The Court added that the disciplinary authority had considered the petitioner’s explanation before imposing punishment, and that where the disciplinary authority accepts the enquiry officer’s findings, detailed independent reasons are not required in every case.
The Court emphasised that bank officers are held to a higher standard of honesty and integrity because they deal with depositors’ and customers’ money. It relied on State Bank of India v. Bela Bagchi (2005) and Bali Ram Prasad Singh v. General Manager (HR) cum Reviewing Authority, Bank of India (2019).
Upholding the punishment, the Court observed: “Once this Court has come to the conclusion that the order of punishment is based upon the enquiry report which clearly reflects that the petitioner has fraudulently sanctioned and disbursed 44 fake loans with malafide intention to fake borrowers which is an act of institutional corruption, resulting into misappropriation and financial loss to the Bank, eroding public trust and confidence; based upon such finding, the disciplinary authority, after following the procedure adopted and due compliance of the principles of natural justice, imposed the punishment in terms with Regulation 39(2)(b)(vi) of Regulation, 2010, no interference is required. Since the act of the petitioner, besides constituting gross misconduct, it clearly undermine the hope and trust of the public at large. The punishment imposed does not require any reconsideration.”
The Court also rejected the submission that no loss had been caused to the Bank, noting that all 44 loan accounts had been directed to be closed after being declared fake, leaving no mechanism for recovery of the disbursed amounts.
Conclusion
Finding no illegality in the enquiry, dismissal order, or appellate order, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
Cause Title: Vinay Verma v. Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank
Appearances
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Shivendra Kishore, with Advocates Md. Shahnawaz Ali, Md. Shadab Alam, Bipin Kumar and Suraj Samdarshi
Respondents: Advocate Prabhakar Jha