‘Bank employees should discharge duties with utmost integrity’
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 24: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that while exercising the power under Article 226 it cannot venture into re-appreciation of evidence with respect to any inquiry and conclusion drawn in accordance with law. Moreover, court cannot substitute an opinion to the wisdom of the inquiry officer or disciplinary authority.
These observations were made by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while rejecting the petition challenging dismissal of a bank employee for being ill-founded and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The petitioner Muneer Ahmad Paswal was dismissed from the services for betraying the trust and confidence of the bank by resorting to a parallel banking by receipt of deposit from customers against fake receipts and repay such deposits against withdrawals/cheques without routing the deposits and payment to the bank and made requisite entries falsely in the passbooks of the customers.
The counsels appearing for the bank submitted that the petitioner, on being confronted with the complaints raised, deposited a huge amount of Rs 1,54,400 up to 10.01.2013 thus leaving a substantial amount of Rs 8,44,900 yet to be accounted for.
After hearing both the sides, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal said, “I do not find any fault with respect to the action of the respondents in dismissing the petitioner against whom serious allegations have been proved”, adding “since there is no specific challenge in the instant petition either to the charge-sheet or to the inquiry proceedings, this court refrains from giving any finding with respect to the terminology used in the charge-sheet and the conducting of the inquiry proceedings”.
Pointing towards several judgments of the Supreme Court, Justice Nargal said, “this court while exercising the power under Article 226 can’t venture into re-appreciation of evidence with respect to any inquiry and conclusion drawn in accordance with law”.
“This court can’t substitute an opinion to the wisdom of the inquiry officer or disciplinary authority. It is not open for this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 to go into the proportionality of the punishment as long as such punishment shocks the conscience of the court”, Justice Nargal said, adding “I concur with the view of the disciplinary authority that the petitioner lacked integrity”.
“An employee of the bank is required to exercise highest standard of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of depositors and the customers. Every employee of the bank is under solemn duty to protect the interest of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a employee of bank”, High Court said.
With these observations, High Court said, “the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority of dismissal by no stretch of imagination can be construed as disproportionate to the gravity of allegations leveled against the petitioner, which stood proved”. Accordingly, High Court upheld the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and dismissed the petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel