A view of the Madras High Court in Chennai. File
| Photo Credit: Okay. Pichumani
Observing that the character of punishment to be imposed in disciplinary proceedings must be examined based mostly on the satisfaction of authorities who’ve a duty to uphold dignity, self-discipline and sanctity, the Madras High Court has upheld the punishment of removal from service imposed on a nationalised bank supervisor for producing fake boarding and lodging bills.
Justice C.V. Karthikeyan wrote: “The court cannot substitute itself for the appointing authority and re-examine whether the punishment imposed was proportionate or should be reduced. Views might differ. But, it is the view of the appointing authority which has to be examined and while examining so, the only aspect to be considered is whether principles of natural justice had been violated or not.”
In the current case, the petitioner, appointed as a Probationary Officer in State Bank of India (SBI) in 2009 and posted as Athavanur department manaager at Yelagiri in Vellore district in 2011, had certainly been given a possibility of private listening to earlier than being imposed with the punishment of removal from service in 2015, the decide mentioned.
The writ petitioner had pleaded for a lesser punishment earlier than the court docket on the bottom that he comes from a downtrodden rural household and {that a} profession in banking had been his childhood dream. He additionally mentioned that he had the reponsibility of taking good care of his aged mom present process medical remedy.
However, the decide mentioned: “These are aspects which must have played upon the mind of the petitioner before he produced fake and false bills. He should have thought for a minute before submitting those bills and claiming reimbursement. He has not only submitted false bills but also had obtained monetary benefit. Had he been a little thoughtful about his own family, he would not have produced those false bills.”
Stating the petitioner had no alternative however to face the repercussion of his personal acts, the decide mentioned, it was not as if these bills had been foisted on him and he was requested to provide them to profit someone else. The bills had been produced for his personal profit and he had wrongfully gained by manufacturing of such bills.
SBI counsel Chevanan Mohan informed the court docket the petitioner had submitted bills for having stayed at Room No. 201 at Yelagiri Holiday Home from November 29, 2013 to December 28, 2013 at a every day price of ₹1,300. However, throughout inquiry, the supervisor of the vacation residence reported there was no room numbered 201 and the utmost price for any room within the lodge was solely ₹880 per day.
After the inquiry officer discovered the costs to be proved, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of reduce in increment. However, the appointing authority (General Manager) elevated the punishment to removal from service and it was permitted by the appellate authority (Chief General Manager) too in 2016.
Though the petitioner claimed there had been situations of the bank dropping motion towards officers who had indulged in related practices, the decide mentioned: ‘This just isn’t a series response to be inspired. The info of the case contact upon the insecurity which most people could have on a bank official when he himself is alleged to have misappropriated the cash.”