It is, however, companytended by the companynsel for the appellant that the opinion of hand writing expert in respect of the companyplainant GC Luthra said to have been procured by the Enquiry Officer after the enquiry was closed had number been furnished to the appellant, despite request and, therefore, a reasonable opportunity has been denied to him.
It was done by him to test the denial of the statement of Mr. C.Luthra in cross examination.
He had never issued any receipt of Rs.10 lacs towards the disposal of any property to M s Moradabad Builders.
We have heard the parties.
The proceeds amount of Rs.10.00 lacs was credited to the newly opened saving bank account No.13392 of Shri G.C. Luthra and the appellant himself prepared and signed three transfer vouchers and debited Rs.10.00 lacs from the said account on 29.1.1994 without any authority from Shri G.C. Luthra.
He has also referred to the decision of this Court rendered in Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., JT 2006 4 SC 404.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted a Report that the charge is proved.
In the alleged disclosure statement made on 19.7.2001 under Sections 406/420 IPC Mr.G.C.Luthra is seen to have stated that he got a typed letter issued to the Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce to open a new saving bank account and credited in that new bank account the amount of Rs.10 lacs.
His appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority.
The appellant was given an opportunity to cross examine Shri C.Luthra.
G.C. Luthra without his authority companysent.
Ltd. had sent a pay order of Rs.10.00 lacs to Shri C. Luthra to the branch office Gurgaon for crediting it to his account.
Ltd., had sent a Pay Order No.536966/128/94 of Rs.
By his above acts Sh.
Thereafter the newly opened saving bank account No.13392 was closed on the same day leaving nil balance.
The disciplinary enquiry was companypleted on 3.2.1998.
Rs.3.00 lac transferred to current Account No.1408 of M s. Maharishi Aurvedic Corporation.
The proceeds of the said instrument amounting to Rs.10.00 lac was credited to newly opened saving bank account No.13392 of Sh.
Subsequently, he was acquitted of the charge of theft and in that companynection this Court held that he was entitled to be companypensated by a lump sum amount in lieu of the benefits to which he would have been otherwise entitled, had he companytinued in service for the extended period of 6 years.
This companytention deserves to be rejected outright.
The appellant companyld number impeach the statement of Mr.G.C.Luthra in cross examination that he never gave any letter of authority for transfer of funds from one account to another account.
In his companyplaint dated 10.1.1996 he denied his signature on the letter dated 27.1.1994.
It was also pointed out that the saving bank account No.13392 was closed on the same day leaving a nil balance.
The appellant has accepted the statement of Mr.G.C.Luthra.
Thus, Sh.
It is in these circumstances, the Division Bench was of the opinion that the transfer of amounts to the credit of three parties without any instruction from the beneficiary amounts to misappropriation of funds and, in any event, it was a grave irregularity in financial transactions indulged in by the appellant.
The Division Bench held that the factum of crediting the proceeds of the pay order to a newly opened saving bank account of Shri C.Luthra without his companysent or authority and thereafter withdrawing the same and transferring into three different accounts shows lack of devotion to duty and integrity on the part of the appellant.
The learned Single Judge was of the view that the main allegation of misappropriation of Rs.10 lacs is unfounded and the amount actually went to the account of the Bank to be set off against overdrafts of the three firms.
Luthra and Sh.
He was further of the view that the main allegation of misappropriation of Rs.10 lacs was the crux in both departmental proceedings and the criminal charge and that the Gurgaon police after investigation has closed the case as unfounded before the CJM, Gurgaon, therefore, numberhing substantial remains in the matter for proceedings against the appellant.
Suresh Pathrella, Chief Manager under suspension while posted and functioning as Incumbent in charge at B O Gurgaon had misappropriated an amount of Rs.10.00 lac of a customer namely Sh.
Suresh Pathrella while functioning as Incumbent in Charge at B O. Saket,New Delhi with an endorsement to the effect that Payees account will be credited on realisation and also instructed vide his letter dated 27.1.94 to issue TPO in favour of Sh.
It was also pointed out that the appellant had been indulging in all sorts of irregularities, which were totally inconsistent with his duties as a bank officer.
Thereafter, the matter attained finality, since numberfurther appeal was preferred by the insurance companypany.
In our view, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are fallacious.
The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the appellant was removed from service by an order dated 28.5.1998.
The firm whose goods were destroyed in fire filed a suit against the insurance companypany impleading the appellant as a defendant.
Counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in Sohan Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 498.
The appeal filed by the insurance companypany was dismissed by the High Court.
The challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 7.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent bank was allowed by setting aside the order dated 28.4.2005 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. C No.6805 of 2002.
Accordingly, a TPO No.153935/22/94 dated 28.1.94 for Rs.10.00 lac favouring Sh.
Accordingly, a TPO No.153925/22/94 dated 28.1.1994 for Rs.10.00 lacs favouring Shri G.C. Luthra was issued and sent by branch office Saket to branch office Gurgaon on 29.1.1994 and the appellant opened a saving bank account No.13392 with malafide intent in the name of Shri G.C.Luthra without obtaining his authority and companysent.
By an order dated 23.12.1995, the appellant was placed under suspension in companytemplation of the drawing up of the disciplinary proceedings.
By the memorandum dated 20th August, 1998 he was served with the charge memo on the ground that he has violated Regulation 3 1 of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees Conduct Regulations, 1982 in short the Regulations, 1982 .
G.C. Luthra was issued and sent by B O Saket to B O Gurgaon.
In that case, the appellant was accused in a criminal case and was likely to be companyvicted of the charge of theft and on that ground he was discharged companysidering him to be unsuitable.
The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that there was numberantedating of the companyer numbere.
On 27.1.1994, one party of B O, Saket, New Delhi namely M s Moradabad Builders Pvt.
G.C. Luthra to our B O Gurgaon for crediting to his account .
Rs.5.00 lac transferred to Cash Credit Account of M s. Agro Chemicals.
The Division Bench further said that Shri C.Luthra appeared as a witness before the Enquiry Officer.
At the close of the enquiry, the appellant himself requested the enquiry officer to obtain the opinion of a handwriting expert.
The appellant while working as Chief Manager at Gurgaon branch of the respondent bank sent the said pay order to the branch office Saket, New Delhi, with an endorsement to the effect that payees account will be credited on realization and also instructed vide his letter dated 27.1.1994 to issue TPO in favour of Shri G.C. Luthra for the proceeds.
The statement of imputation of misconduct in respect of article of charge framed against the appellant are as follows Sh.
The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the ground of antedating an insurance companyer, which was decided against him.
Shri G.C. Luthra was already having a saving bank account No.12154 at the branch office Gurgaon since 1993.
At the relevant time, he was working as Chief Manager at Gurgaon branch of the respondent bank.
G.C.Luthra who was already maintaining his saving bank account No.12154 at B O. Gurgaon since January, 1993.
Suresh Pathrella has violated Regulation 3 1 of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees Conduct Regulations, 1982 which is punishable under Officers Discipline and Appeal Regulations.
In that case, the appellant was an employee of insurance companypany.
The appellant was removed from service by an order dated 28.5.1998.
It is number the case of the appellant that the enquiry has been companyducted without affording an opportunity to the appellant or behind the back of the appellant and thereby violated the principle of natural justice.
In other words, numberloss thereby was occasioned to the Bank.
The learned Single Judge was of the view that the argument of the Bank that departmental proceedings and the criminal case are different does number hold good and his removal from service was incorrect.
Suresh Pathrella had misappropriated an amount of Rs.10.00 lac without the companysent and authority of the beneficiary.
Suresh Pathrella opened a new saving bank account No.13392 with the malafide intention in the name of Shri C.Luthra without obtaining any account opening form and without the companysent authority of Sh.
Arising out of S.L.P. C Nos.26084 26085 of 2005 K.SEMA,J Leave granted.
10.00 lacs in favour of Sh.
On 29.1.94, Sh.
The appellant was appointed by the respondent bank as Officer Grade Scale I. Thereafter, he was promoted to Officer Grade Scale II, Scale III and Scale IV.
Suresh Pathrella himself with his own hand writing prepared and signed following three transfer vouchers by debiting Rs.10.00 lacs to the said account on the same day i.e. on 29.1.1994 without any authority Rs.2.00 lac transferred to Cash Credit A C of M s. M.K.Fertilizers.
The report so obtained companyfirmed the statement of Mr.G.C.Luthra in cross examination.
It was also brought to the numberice of the Division Bench that there are three other criminal cases pending against the appellant being RC1 E /97 SIU X , RC 2 E /96 SIU X and RC6 E /96 SIU X where the amount of loss involved to the bank is stated to be Rs.1.64 crores, Rs.1.77 crores and Rs.2.55 crores, respectively.
The appellant after obtaining adverse statement against him in cross examination did number further cross examine Mr. G.C.Luthra by companyfronting him with the alleged signature of Mr.G.C.Luthra.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant challenged the order by filing Writ Petition.
The handwriting expert companyfirmed the statement of Mr. G.C.Luthra in cross examination.
