Misappropriation Of Funds: J-K And Ladakh HC Upholds Peon Dismissal From ED Bank

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the dismissal of a peon from the Ellaquai Dehati Bank, after observing that every bank employee has a solemn duty to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with the utmost integrity.

According to a single bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal,

“The petitioner has betrayed 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 and this charge against the petitioner stood proved by way of a detailed inquiry.”

Muneer Ahmad Paswal, the petitioner, had been suspended on the basis of a FIR in 2013 for charges of misappropriation of funds. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging his suspension, but he was dismissed from service before it could be resolved.

The petitioner challenged his dismissal on the grounds that the Enquiry Officer did not give him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, and that his response to the charge-sheet was not taken into account. The petitioner also claimed that copies of the complaint allegedly made against him and relied on by the respondents were not provided to him, nor was he allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, and that as a result, the investigation was illegal and should be set aside.

In ruling on the case, the single bench noted that the petitioner had not raised any objections to the chargesheet or the inquiry proceedings. Justice Nargal also stated that the petitioner’s claim that the inquiry officer failed to provide him with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself falls flat in light of the original record produced by the respondent-Bank.

Noting that a copy of the inquiry report was provided to the petitioner, the bench stated that after accepting the inquiry report and the officer’s findings, the petitioner is estopped under law to question the imposition of the penalty by the disciplinary authority which is an offshoot of the recommendations given by the inquiry officer wherein all the charges against the petitioner stood proved.

In addition, the bench stated that the findings of the inquiry officer had been accepted by the disciplinary authority and that the court could not act as an appellate court to look into the findings reached by the inquiry officer in the absence of any specific challenge to the same.