DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY OF THE RESPONDENT BANK IMPOSING PENALTY OF RECOVERY FROM SALARY OF THE PETITIONER. REF:HO PW IR 3070 2016-17. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner when working as Branch Manager in the respondent Bank received the stop payment request to stop payment of cheque No.120127 in respect of account No.CA-324 of Mallikarjun S Patil. On 10/11/2008, the petitioner honoured the cheque for sum a of Rs.1,05,000/- payable to self Sangamesh Patil bearing cheque No.020127 dated 10/11/2008 and the said cheque was duly signed by the account holder as drawer. On 24/11/2008, the account holder Mallikarjun S Patil lodged a complaint with the respondent Bank stating that the petitioner having failed to accede to the request for stop payment the amount was wrongfully paid to the holder of the cheque namely Sangamesh Patil.
2. The respondent Bank issued article of charges alleging that the petitioner when working as Branch Manager having failed to take appropriate action on the stop payment instruction has wrongfully paid amount to Sangmesh Patil holder of the cheque causing monetary loss of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent Bank.
3. The petitioner offered explanation to the article of charges. However, the same was not found satisfactory by the respondent Bank and disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The inquiry officer after conducting the inquiry submitted a report, exonerating the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority after receiving the inquiry report issued notice to the petitioner as to why appropriate action should not be taken for the charge framed against the petitioner. The petitioner suitably replied to the said show cause notice. However, the disciplinary authority held that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved and accordingly passed an order directing the petitioner to refund sum of Rs.26,250/-.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the appeal before the appropriate authority. However, the said appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that stop payment request was made not by the holder of the account but by the third person and the cheque number mentioned in the letter requesting to make stop payment is different from the cheque which the petitioner honoured in favour of the Sangmesh Patil and inquiry officer taking into account the said aspect has exonerated the petitioner to the charges framed against him. However, the disciplinary authority without there being any evidence to prove the charge, has passed the impugned order, imposing penalty of Rs.26,250/-. He further submits that the respondent Bank has not examined the holder of the account who lodged the complaint against the petitioner. Hence, the inquiry initiated against the petitioner stands vitiated.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Bank would submit that the disciplinary authority after taking into account that the petitioner has not taken any action to honour stop payment has rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent Bank is in accordance with law and the same does not warrant any interference.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties.
8. Admittedly the stop payment request was made by Sri.Mallikarjun S Patil, who is not the holder of the account bearing No.CA-324 and the cheque number mentioned in the stop payment request is mentioned as 120127 whereas the cheque which was honoured by the petitioner is in respect of cheque No.020127. The inquiry officer taking into account this aspect has submitted a report exonerating the petitioner from charges. However, the disciplinary authority only on the ground that the petitioner has not acted upon the stop payment request for stopping payment of cheque by exercising abundant caution has passed the impugned order. The petitioner has honoured the cheque in respect of account No.CA-324 bearing cheque No.020127 whereas non payment request was issued with respect to cheque No.120127. Hence, in the absence of any evidence and also the complainant not having been examined by the respondent Bank, the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned communication dated 25/8/2016 at Annexure-N by the respondent Bank and the impugned order dated 23/08/2016 by Appellate Authority at Annexure-N are hereby quashed. iii) The respondent Bank is directed to refund sum of Rs.26,250/- which was recovered as penalty from the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- JUDGE Vb/-
Comments