WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 1 of 25

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA,

MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

WP(C) No. 254/2007

Sri Arun Kumar Roy, Senior Manager, Security, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Guwahati, GNB Road, Chandmari, Opp. Flood Control Office, Guwahati-3 (since Dismissed) Resident of House No. 59, Bye Lane No.6, Pub-sarania, Guwahati-3, Assam.

…………Petitioner

-Versus-

1. Union Bank of India, through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Union Bank of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 4000021.

2. The Executive Director, Union Bank of

India, Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 4000021.

3. The General Manager (HRMD), Union Bank

of India, Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 4000021.

4. The Deputy General Manager (HRM),

Union Bank of India, Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021.

5. The Assistant Geneal Manager (IR), Union

Bank of India, Central Office, Union Bank

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 2 of 25

Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021.

6. The Assistant General Manager, Union

Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office, Guwahati, GNB Road, Chandmari, Guwahati-3, Assam.

7. Sri Anwar Ali, Inquiry Officer, B-1502,

Atlantic Building B-Wing, Sagarcity, V.P. Road, Off. S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058.

8. Union of India, through the Secretary,

Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), North Block, New Delhi – 110011.

……….Respondents.

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA

For the Petitioner : Mr. B. Kalita, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Khanikar, Adv. For the respondents: Mr. L.P. Sarma, Adv. Date of hearing : 10.05.2011. Date of judgement : 26.05.2011.

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

B.K. Sharma, J The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-H

order dated 21.3.2006, by which pursuant to the

departmental proceeding, he was dismissed from

service of the respondent Bank as Senior Manager

(Security). He is also aggrieved by the appellate order

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 3 of 25

dated 26.6.2006, by which the departmental appeal

preferred by him against the order of dismissal, was

also rejected.

2. The petitioner while was serving in the

respondent Bank as Senior Manager (Security) was

served with the charge sheet dated 13.8.2005

containing the statement of allegations and

attributing misconducts as follows :-

“1. Doing acts unbecoming of an Officer Employee of the Bank.

2. Failure to discharge his duties with

honesty and integrity.

3. Acting otherwise than in his best judgement in the performance of his official duties.

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS The following acts of omission and commission have been reported against Shri A.K. Roy, Senior Manager (Security), Regional Office, Guwahati. Kanpith Branch, Surat was holding

revolver .32 bore make Webbly Scott No. 60696. On 15.02.1996, Shri A.K. Roy, then Security Officer, Ahmedabad placed a note before the Dy. Zonal Head seeking permission to get the weapon transferred in his personal name. Though the proposal put up by him was not in line with the Bank‟s policy, the then Dy. Zonal Head approved the same. Thereafter, the permission of the Licensing Authority was taken and the

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 4 of 25

weapon was transferred in the name of Shri A.K. Roy at Ahmedabad.

Shri Roy was transferred from

Ahmedabad to Bhopal in August 1999. On his transfer to Bhopal he was required to take immediate steps to return the weapon to the Bank. However, he preferred to deposit the revolver with the private Arms Dealer “for oiling and servicing” on 26.11.1999 against his personal name and Arms Licence for which no permission was accorded by superior officers.

In July 2003 when Capt. G.S. Gulati,

Asstt. Manager (Security) from Regional Office, Baroda visited Kanpith Branch, he learnt about the Bank‟s revolver being held by Shri A.K. Roy. Thereafter, the Chief Manager (Security), Central Office, telephonically informed Shri Roy on 26.07.2003 to get the weapon transferred in the Bank‟s name. In terms of letter no. SEC:BR:0316:147 dated 27.07.2003 Shri Roy was advised by the Chief Manager (Security) to send the copy of the Safe Custody Receipt to Zonal Security Manager, Ahmedabad and to get the weapon transferred to any branch in Ahmedabad City in consultation with the Zonal Security Manager, Ahmedabad. Shri Roy thereafter, wrote a backdated letter as of 25.07.2003 to the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad seeking permission to transfer the weapon in the Bank‟s name.

Subsequently Zonal Office, Ahmedabad

was advised to obtain a licence for the said weapon in the name of the Branch Manager, C.G. Road branch. The action

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 5 of 25

of Shri Roy in getting the weapon transferred in his name without any purchase/gift transaction was viewed seriously by the Police Authorities of Ahmedabad. The weapon was taken in the Bank‟s possession in July 2004 and was auctioned during February 2005 by Zonal Office, Ahmedabad for an amount of Rs. 1.40 lacs.

The act of Shri Roy of keeping the

Bank‟s revolver for 4 years even after his transfer from Ahmedabad is against the security policy of the Bank and it is hereby alleged that he had done so as to get the Bank‟s weapon transferred in his own name and make wrongful gain from the same.

3. The gist of the aforesaid charge is that the

petitioner while was holding the Bank’s revolver .32

bore make Webbly Scott No. 60696 as the Security

Officer of the Bank while was posted at Ahmedabad

got the weapon transferred to his name in the year

1996. Thereafter, although he was transferred from

Ahmedabad to Bhopal in August, 1995, he did not

return the weapon to the Bank and instead deposited

the same with a private Arms Dealer on 26.11.99

against his personal name. In July, 2003, it was learnt

that the Bank’s revolver was being held by the

petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was

telephonically informed on 26.7.2003 to get the

weapon transferred in the Bank’s name. By letter

dated 27.7.2003, the petitioner was also informed by

Chief Manager (Security) to send the safe custody

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 6 of 25

receipt to Zonal Security Manager, Ahmedabad and to

get the weapon transferred to any branch in

Ahmedabad city in consultation with the Zonal

Security Manager, Ahmedabad. The petitioner

thereafter wrote a back dated letter as of 25.7.2003

to the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad seeking

permission of transfer of the weapon in the Bank’s

name.

4. By the aforesaid act, the petitioner got the

Bank’s revolver transferred in his personal name

without any purchase / gift transaction, which the

Police authorities of Ahmedabad viewed seriously.

The petitioner also kept the Bank’s revolver for four

years even after his transfer from Ahmedabad, which

was against the security policy of the Bank. Thus, it

was alleged that he had done the above act for

wrongful gain. The revolver was eventually taken to

Bank’s possession in July, 2004 and thereafter was

auctioned in February, 2005, which fetched the

amount of Rs. 1.40 lakhs.

5. The above charge sheet was preceded by a show

cause notice to the petitioner regarding illegal

possession of the revolver to which the petitioner had

replied vide Annexure-A letter dated 6.6.2005. Being

not satisfied with the reply, the Bank had issued the

aforesaid charge sheet. In his reply, the plea of the

petitioner was that since his transfer to Bhopal from

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 7 of 25

Ahmedabad was unexpected and sudden and it was

due to exigencies of organizational need, he had to

proceed to Bhopal immediately to take charge there

and consequently could not hand over the revolver to

the Bank. According to the said reply, he had

deposited the revolver with a gun dealer on technical

ground for safe custody and timely maintenance of

the weapon. It was also stated in the reply that the

gun licence was to expire on 31.12.1999 and since the

renewal permission was needed, he made repeated

request to the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad.

6. In response to the above charge sheet, the

petitioner in his reply furnished vide Annexure-C

dated 13.9.2005 denied the charge and alleged that

the charge levelled against him was ill motivated.

The petitioner in his reply justified his action of

retaining the Bank’s revolver on the ground of his

sudden transfer to Bhopal and the request to the

Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad for renewal of the

gun licence.

7. As noted above, the Disciplinary Authority being

not satisfied with the reply furnished by the

petitioner, ordered for a departmental enquiry with

due intimation to the petitioner. The petitioner duly

participated in the departmental enquiry, on

conclusion of which he had submitted his written

brief. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report dated

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 8 of 25

19.12.2005 (Annexure-G) holding the petitioner to be

guilty of the charge/ allegation. The petitioner duly

submitted his representation against the inquiry

report. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority in

consideration of the materials on record, passed the

impugned Annexure-H order of dismissal from service

dated 21.3.2006, in respect of which the petitioner

preferred the Annexure-I appeal dated 1.4.2006. In

the appeal, the petitioner had contended that there

was nothing to prove that he had done anything

contrary to the Arms Act or pre-judicial to the

interest of the Institution. He also contended that the

possession of the revolver by him till it was returned

to the Bank, was without any ulterior motive.

8. Being not satisfied with the plea raised in the

departmental appeal, the Appellate Authority while

holding that the petitioner failed to clarify as to why

he had deposited the weapon with the Arms dealer

instead of with the Bank and that his such action of

not handing over the revolver to his successor and

resorting to fraudulent activities to get the weapon

transferred in his personal name, indicated his loss of

honesty and integrity, rejected the appeal. Being

aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ

petition, praying for setting aside and quashing of the

impugned orders.

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 9 of 25

9. The respondents have filed their counter

affidavit denying the pleas and contentions raised in

the writ petition. It has been stated in the affidavit

that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of

a Security officer of a Bank and since it was found

that he was guilty of the charge referred to above,

the Disciplinary Authority took the decision not to

retain him in service, which according to the

respondents, cannot be interfered with exercising

writ jurisdiction.

10. In paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 of the affidavit, it has

been stated thus :-

“6. That it is pertinent to mention here that the post of Security Officer is a supervisory post in respect of supervision of all the branches under a Zonal office and / or Regional Office. In the year 1996 the petitioner was posted at Ahmedabad Zonal Office and under that Zonal office there was a branch known as Kanpith Branch at Surat and the said branch was holding a revolver point .32 bore make Webbly Scott No. 60696 in the name of the Branch Manager. The petitioner got managed to transfer the said weapon in his personal name while he was at Ahmedabad. The petitioner did not disclose this fact to the higher authorities of the Respondent Bank.

7. The petitioner was transferred from Ahmedabad to Bhopal in August, 1999 and petitioner, on such transfer, was

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 10 of 25

required to take immediate steps to return the weapon to the Bank but however he did not deposit the revolver and he deposited the said revolver with a private dealer for “oiling and servicing on 26.11.99 against his personal name”, without disclosing this fact to his successor at Ahmedabad or to his superior and / or higher authorities of the Bank. The matter of transferring the weapon in the name of the petitioner came to the knowledge of the Chief Manager, Security Central Office Mumbai only on 26.7.07. The Chief Manager Security asked the petitioner to get that weapon transferred in the Bank‟s name and the petitioner was further advised by the Chief Manager, Security to send a copy of the safe custody receipt to the Zonal Security Manager, Ahmedabad and got the weapon transferred in his name without any purchase / gift transaction was viewed seriously by the police authorities of Ahmedabad and the weapon was taken back in the Bank‟s possession in July, 2004 and the same was auctioned in the month of February, 2005 by the Zonal Office, Ahmedabad for an amount of Rs. 1.40 lakhs.

8. That the action of the petitioner in keeping the Bank‟s revolver for 4 years even after his transfer from Ahmedabad was against the security policy of the Bank and the petitioner transferred the Bank‟s weapon in his own name and make wrongful gain from the same and therefore the Respondent Bank issued a show cause notice to the petitioner vide No. CD/IRD/224 dated 26th April, 2005.“

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 11 of 25

11. It has been contended that the very act in

which the petitioner was involved depicts lack of

integrity and honesty and consequently, the

petitioner who was in Bank’s service as a Security

Officer, had to be dismissed from service. Along with

the affidavit, the respondents have also enclosed the

copy of the letter dated 26.12.2002 (Annexure-VIII)

by which the petitioner had requested the Police

Commissioner, Ahmedabad to recommend his case to

the Govt. of Gujarat for renewal of his gun licence in

his name. In the letter, there was not even a

whisper that the revolver belonged to the Bank.

The letter was under own handwriting of the

petitioner, which was followed by another letter

dated 7.7.2003 addressed to the Chief Secretary,

Govt. of Gujarat by the petitioner, by which also a

request was made for grant of All India status to the

Arm in his name. The said two letters were exhibited

during the enquiry proceeding as MEX-19 & 20

respectively. For a ready reference, both the letters

are quoted below :-

“To, A.K. ROY The Police Commissioner 204, D.K. Surbhi C/O Police Commissioner GOMTI NAGAR Office, SAHI BAUG COLONY AHMEDABAD DHOPAL-462003 GUJRAT Dt. 26.12.02

CAMP : TIKAMGARH M.P. LALITPUR U.P

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 12 of 25

Sir,

Kind attention : SH. KAUSHIK, IPS.

Sub : Arms Licence No. 392/Satellite – A.K. Roy

The renewed gun licence “ No. 392/Satelite” pertains to the undersigned received on 24.12.02 at

my residential address as mentioned above. As per the licence date of which licence expires 29th Dec 2002, having the area of validity, the State of Gujrat.

Application for renewal was submitted at the

office of the Police Commissioner office on 24th Nov, 1999 with the request for renewal as well as for extension of area of validity for whole of India. As explicity mentioned in my application dt. 24.11.99 the reason for request to receive the gun licence with extended area of validity, the same reason still hold good. You are therefore requested kindly recommend my case to the Govt. of Gujrat for doing the needful. Generally it is time taking processes kindly extend the validity of gun licence for another term.

The original gun licence will be deposited to you good selves on my return to Bhopal.

Kindly Acknowledge.

With regards Sincerely yours

Sd/- illegible Enclo : Xerox copy of the gun licence.” “From : A.K. Roy, 204 D.K. Surabhi, Gomti Colony, Bhopal 462003 Ph. ® 0755-2766503. To, Shri P.K. Laheri, IAS,

Chief Secretary, Govt. of Gujrat, C/o. Secretariate, Gandhi Nagar.

Date 7.7.2003

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 13 of 25

Sir,

Sub : Arms licence No. 329/Satellite Ahmedabad.

The undersigned possesses one small caliber

weapon on the above numbered licence issued by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (Xerox copy of

licence enclosed). Consequent upon my transfer (the undersigned

is working as Security Officer in the Union Bank of India- a Central Govt. undertaking) to the State of Madhya Pradesh in Nov, 1999, the weapon as per the arms act, has been deposited with a reputed arms dealer of Ahmedabad (Xerox copy of the receipt is enclosed). For getting all India arms licence status the undersigned applied to the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad ; in turn received reply from the said office of approach licencing authority in Bhopal for getting extension in the area of validity (Xerox copy of the letter is enclosed).

The incharge, arms licence section at the

Collectorate office Bhopal, when contacted explained that since the licence had been issued by

the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad of Gujrat state and weapon was deposited in the territory of Gujrat, the All India Status of the arms licence was to be granted by the Home Ministry, Govt. of Gujrat. The Home Ministry Govt. of Gujrat is requested to grant all India status to my arms licence no. 382 satellite. Earlier applications to this effect are already submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad.

Your good self being at the apex position in

the administrative strata of the Govt. Gujrat, are being approached with the request to kindly help in the long pending issue.

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- illegible”.

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 14 of 25

12. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, he

has reiterated his stand in the writ petition. His plea

is that the retention of the revolver in his name and

his action in not returning the same to the Bank, was

bonafide and not with any ill motive.

13. I have heard Mr. B. Kalita, learned senior

counsel assistant by Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel

for the petitioner as well as Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned

counsel represented the respondent Bank.

14. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner

strenuously argued that having regard to the facts

and circumstances including the fact that although

the petitioner had retained the revolver during his

transfer to Bhopal, there being no ill intention to

convert the same to his personal name, the

Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered that

aspect of the matter. According to him, had it been

the intention of the petitioner to make unlawful gain,

things would have been followed in quick succession.

He further submitted that since the licence was

transferred in the name of the petitioner as per the

approval of the competent authority, the possession

of the same by the petitioner was not unlawful.

15. Countering the above argument, Mr. L.P.

Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Bank

submitted that since the fact of transferring the gun

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 15 of 25

licence by the petitioner to his name followed by

retention of the same by him for long four years, is an

established fact, that by itself proves the charge

against the petitioner. He submitted that the plea

that he did not gain anything by retaining the Bank’s

revolver, cannot come to rescue, inasmuch as, it is

the conduct of the petitioner as Security Officer of

the Bank, what is required to be looked into and not

the inferences which the petitioner seeks this Court

to draw.

16. I have considered the rival submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties and the entire

materials on record including the departmental

proceeding file. In consideration of the same, my

conclusion and finding are as follows.

17. Although the petitioner has contended that the

licence of the gun was transferred to his name as per

the approval of the Bank and in the charge sheet

although the approval is indicated, but the allegation

was that the petitioner misconducted himself to get

the weapon transferred in his personal name and the

proposal was put up by him towards that end, was not

in line with the Bank’s policy. The second allegation

against the petitioner was that he retained the

revolver in his personal capacity inspite of his

transfer from Ahmedabad to Bhopal. In the affidavit-

in-reply, the petitioner has annexed certain

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 16 of 25

documents to contend that the licence was

transferred by him as per the approval accorded by

the competent authority of the Bank.

18. I have carefully gone through the enclosed

documents. Annexure-L is the letter dated 16.2.1996

addressed to the Chief Manager of the particular

branch of the Bank by which the petitioner had

sought for transferring of the revolver to his name. In

the letter, the request was made to transfer the

licence to the “undersigned” i.e. the petitioner. On

the body of the said letter, an endorsement was

made for writing to the Police Commissioner for

transfer. Thereafter, the Manager of the Bank by his

Annexure-M letter dated 28.2.1996 to the Police

Commissioner, Surat City, Surat, sought for

permission for transfer of the revolver from Surat to

Ahmedabad. The letter was followed by another

letter dated 8.4.1996 (Annexure-N) followed by

another letter dated 3.5.1996 (Annexure-O).

19. Nowhere in the said communications, there was

any indication to transfer the revolver in the name of

the petitioner. It was the petitioner, who had written

the 1st letter dated 16.2.1996 (Annexure-L), by which

he had sought for transfer of the licence issued by the

District Administration, Ahmedabad to his name. It

was none of the business of the petitioner to seek

transfer of the licence into his name as the revolver

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 17 of 25

did not belong to him. He being a Security personal of

the Bank ought not to have sought for transfer of the

gun licence to his name.

20. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner not

only transferred the licence to his name but also kept

the gun to himself for long four years on his transfer

to Bhopal. Instead of depositing the same to the Bank

authority, he had deposited the same with a Arms

dealer. Not only that in the above quoted

communications, he did not even remotely indicate

that the gun belonged to the Bank. Everything was

done in his personal capacity as if the gun belonged

to him.

21. All the above aspects of the matter have been

duly taken note of in the departmental proceeding

and the Inquiry officer in his elaborate report has

dealt with each and every aspects of the matter. He

has meticulously discussed the evidence on record

and recorded his findings.

22. As recorded in the enquiry report, the

petitioner got the approval for transferring the Bank’s

revolver in his personal name in contradiction to his

own observation in MEX-14 where he had

recommended that the “gun licence should be

issued by designation in place of individual Branch

Manager”. It has rightly been recorded in the enquiry

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 18 of 25

report that the petitioner did not apply the same rule

to himself. In this connection, the particular findings

recorded in the report are quoted below :-

“It is quite surprising that the CSO did not apply the same rule to himself which he wanted to be applied on the branch.

A perusal of the gun license issued to the CSO MEx-23 indicates that it was issued on 29.12.1995 in his personal name and had his residential address on it. There was no mention of his designation or the name of the Bank. The validity period for the purchase of the weapon was mentioned therein as 28/3/1996, which was subsequently extended to 28/6/1996. There is no evidence that if the CSO wanted to purchase a weapon, he obtained any quotations from any of the Arms dealers in Gujrat or else where. This indicates that after acquiring the license, CSO had no intention of purchasing the weapon. The license has the endorsement reading as under

“Inspected the one .32 bore revolver no. 60696 Webley & Scott. It found corrected on date 17/6/1996 – signed police inspector- License branch”.

The entry of Banks revolver in the personal gun license of the CSO reads as under :-

“Entered the description of one .32 bore revolver no. 60696 Webley Scott purchased from Shri branch manager, Union Bank of India, Kanpith Branch, Surat City license No. 191/676 vide C.P. Surat City letter no. LB/Hathiyas/wastu/632/740, 836/96 dated 4/96”.

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 19 of 25

The above endorsement is very distressing as according to it the revolver was purchased by the CSO from the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Kanpith Branch, which amounts to fraud on the part of the CSO as the revolver was not sold to him. Although the documents, if any, connected with the sale aspect or otherwise of the revolver to the CSO have not come on record of the inquiry, the needle of suspicion points to submission of forged sale documents of the revolver by the CSO to police authorities, otherwise the endorsement would not be made the way it has been made.

It for a moment we take it that Shri Roy forgot to take any step during the above-mentioned period of full one month, at least he could have taken steps during his visit to Ahmedabad in November, 1996, when he deposited the said revolver with M/s. Bandookwala on 26.11.1999 (MEx-3) and that too without referring it to or / and taking approval from it‟s legitimate owner for which no documentary evidence is held on records at any level with Bank (Kanpith Branch / ZO Ahmedabad /CO Mumbai). Also, Shri Roy did not produce any documentary evidence during the course of regular hearing which refutes this fact.

Head Shri Roy intended to return the revolver back to Union Bank of India, he could have informed about it‟s existence and it‟s whereabouts either to Capt. Jose Alex, who took over the charge from Shri Roy at ZO Ahmedabad and has categorically denied having any information about it in his deposition at Pages 12 & 13 of proceedings of regular hearing before the IA, or to the

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 20 of 25

Security Department at Central Office. No action of Shri Roy in this direction clearly spells out his intentions of not returning the said revolver to Bank.

On a critical examination of the arguments of the PO, I agree with him that the CSO did not return the revolver to his successor on his transfer and also had no intention to do so.

The personal license of Shri Roy had an endorsement – „Entered the description of one .32 bore Revolver No. 60696, Webbly Scott purchased from Manager Union Bank of India, Kanpith Branch, Surat ….‟ (page 3 of MEx-23). During the discussions with Capt. Alex, when Licencing authorities came to know that the said revolver was neither purchased from Union Bank nor gifted by Bank, and that this was personal license of Shri Roy (the address does not speak about Union Bank at all), the dealing authorities got furious and insisted on for a disciplinary action against Shri Roy and a copy of the proceedings thereof for effecting the transfer (MEx-24).

Article of Charge

In view of what has been stated above I now proceed to discuss the components of the Articles of Charge as under :

1.Doing acts unbecoming of an Officer Employee of the Bank. The CSO as an officer of the Bank

promoted his personal interest rather than protecting Bank‟s interest by having Banks revolver transferred in his personal name. This was done on a wrong and misleading

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 21 of 25

pretext of better maintenance of the revolver, when the same revolver was being well maintained by Kanpith Branch since 1949 as per the CSO‟s own observations as appearing in his inspection reports. Further, as rightly argued by the CSO, the Bank Management had provided the revolver to Kanpith Branch with some purpose in 1949. By withdrawing it from the branch and not deploying it else where in the Bank‟s network, the CSO diluted the security of Kanpith branch and also used the Bank‟s property for his personal use. Moreover had the CSO advised the Management to dispose off the revolver by way of sale in 1995 (when it had come to his knowledge as claimed by him), Bank would not have suffered loss due to late disposal of revolver in February 2005 (notional interest for 10 years). There is a clear case of holding this component of Articles of charge as proved and is held proved accordingly.

2. Failure to discharge his duties with honesty and integrity. The CSO deliberately concealed the fact

about the said revolver from the Management till such time as he got his personal arms license issued and then misguided the AGM, Ahmedabad in granting approval for the transfer of the Bank‟s revolver in his personal name. He did not place his personal arms license for perusal before the approving authority and made him to believe that the revolver was being transferred in the official name of the Regional Security officer. The CSO had one this after a careful planning, which is manifest in the fact that even after acquiring the personal license he did not obtain any quotations from various Arms dealers. Had he done so, he would mentioned this aspect

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 22 of 25

in his explanation dated 6.6.2005 and his statement of defence dated 13.9.2005. The action of the CSO in not handing over the revolver and the cartridges to his successor until the whistle was blown by Capt. G.S. Gulati leave no doubt about the lack of honesty and integrity of the SO. I hold this component of the Articles of Charge as proved.

3. Action otherwise than in his best judgement in the performance of his official duty.

The best judgement for the CSO would have been to advise Kanpith branch to maintain it through it in the same way as was done by the Branch since 1949 or at the most the Armed Guard posted thereat could have been instructed to get it cleaned and oiled at regular intervals, in case the CSO felt that special care was necessary for the revolver. Further, in case the revolver was surplus at Kanpith Branch and it was not required by any other branch of the Bank, the CSO should have taken steps for the disposal of the revolver by way of sale in 1996. Moreover, as a last resort the CSO felt that the custody of the surplus revolver at the branch posed some security threat he should have advised the branch to deposit the revolver with local arms dealer. The CSO did nothing of this sort but preferred to get the revolver transferred in his personal name by resorting to fraudulent means and took possession of 22 cartridges and held them in his possession illegally for a period of over 4 years. I, therefore, hold this component of the Articles of charge as proved.”

23. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner

also submitted that even if the charge against the

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 23 of 25

petitioner is said to have been established, there

being no loss caused to the Bank on account of

retention of the gun by the petitioner, the

punishment imposed, which is dismissal from service,

is disproportionate. Dealing with the case of

misappropriation in Municipality Vs. Krishnan

Behari reported in (1996) 2 SCC 714, the Apex Court

held that the amount misappropriated may be small

or large but it is the act of misappropriation i.e.

relevant. It was held that in such circumstances,

punishment of dismissal was proper. Similarly, in

Additional District magistrate Vs. Prabhakar

Chaturvedi reported in (1996) 2 SCC 12, a

temporary misappropriation of an amount of Rs.

21,000/- was viewed seriously by the Apex Court. It

was held that in such a case punishment of dismissal,

cannot be said to be disproportionate.

24. In the instant case, till the fact of possessing

the gun by the petitioner without depositing the same

to the Bank upon his transfer to Bhopal was detected,

which was long after four years, the petitioner apart

from converting the licence to his name, also got to

himself the gun as if the same was his personal

property. The question is not one of incurring any loss

by the Bank but the same relates to the conduct of

the petitioner, which on the face of it was

unbecoming of a Security Officer of the Bank.

Admittedly, he misutilised the confidence reposed on

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 24 of 25

him, firstly, by transferring the gun into his name and

thereafter keeping the same in his possession for long

four years.

25. The above quoted two letters written by the

petitioner speak for itself. As has been held by the

Apex Court in Channabasappa Basappa Happali Vs.

State of Mysore reported in AIR 1972 SC 32,

admission of fact as narrated in the charge itself

amounts to admission of guilt. It was a clear case of

indiscipline and nothing else. If a Bank Security

officer keeps the Bank’s gun to himself by converting

the same to his name and also takes recourse to

further conduct as reflected in the above quoted two

letters of the petitioner, the misconduct attributed

to the petitioner is fully established. The entire

defence of the petitioner amounted to a plea of quilt

on the facts on which the petitioner was charged and

consequently it cannot be said to be a case of

discharging the petitioner from the charge levelled

against him.

26. As regards the procedure adopted in the

enquiry, nothing was argued. The petitioner has not

shown any prejudice because of the procedure

adopted in conducting the enquiry. In fact, he was

provided with all the reasonable opportunity of being

heard. During the course of hearing of the writ

petition, nothing was contended that any prejudice

WP(C) 254 of 2007 Page 25 of 25

was caused to the petitioner in the departmental

enquiry. What was contended is that the conduct

attributed to the petitioner as the misconduct, did

not call for any departmental proceeding and that

even if the charge is said to have been established,

the same did not call for extreme penalty of dismissal

from service. This aspect of the matter has been

dealt with above.

27. For all the aforesaid reasons and the conclusion

arrived at, I see no reason to interfere with the

impugned departmental proceeding and the

consequential orders of dismissal from service and

the rejection of the departmental appeal

respectively.

28. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ

petition and accordingly it is dismissed, leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Sukhamay