Case Name: THE GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL SYNDICATE BANK & ORS VS BSN PRASAD
Case Number: Criminal Appeal no. 6327 OF 2024
Date: January 21,2025
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S.Oka and Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case emerged due to an allegation made on the respondent who was acting as a branch manager of the syndicate bank who initiated his career as a clerk in the same bank in Mudigubba branch while his tenure he was accused for the various financial irregularities and siphoning of the funds like fraudulently debiting funds from crop insurance account and crediting it to syndicate insurance credit card (SKCC) without the knowledge of the borrower , exceeded the sanction credit limits and also facilitated the unauthorized withdrawal, misappropriated the amount of rupees 9000 under the debt waiver scheme , sanctioned a vehicle loan that become an Non Performing Asset ( NPA), colluded with others so to siphon a fund of rupees 70,000. After this an investigation was initiated leading to a chargesheet in October 2011 and after inquiry into the matter he was found guilty and was dismissed in year 2012 .After this the respondent was acquitted from the criminal charges and appealed for the dismissal into the high court after high court getting into the case found the procedural lapses and lack of evidences , set aside the case and reinstated the wages to be given for the period of his termination to the current date . After this the syndicate bank appealed this decision before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
Whether the dismissal of B.N.S Prasad was justified based upon the evidence presented during the disciplinary proceeding & the High Court intervention in disciplinary proceeding was appropriate and legally binding.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Regulation 3(1) of Syndicate Bank officer’s Employee ( conduct) Regulations,1976 : Mendates employees to act honestly and diligently in their duties.
- Regulation 24 of Syndicate Bank officer’s Employee ( conduct) Regulations,1976 : Prohibits any action constituting Fraud or Misconduct.
ARGUMENTS
Arguments of the Appellant ( Syndicate Bank) :
That the disciplinary proceeding was adhered to the principle of natural justice and the respondent were given ample opportunity of being heard , that the respondent actions involved fraudulent debits and use of the customer funds to undermine the integrity of the banking system that the high court has acted beyond its jurisdiction by reevaluating the focusing upon the adequateness of the evidences rather than the procedural fairness.
Arguments of the Respondent (B.N.S Prasad):
Respondent sought that the error was due to the heavy workload because he was managing over 4800 SKCC Accounts within 60 days and also stated that he doesn’t have any fraudulent intent or any personal gain involved . that all the financial losses happened to the bank were recovered and the bank suffered no losses . He also alleged that the cashier and the affected customers were not identified and the disciplinary inquiry was flawed and the bank has also infringed the principle of natural justice . that the dismissal was disproportionate and given his clean service record of the last 21 years and mitigating circumstances .
ANALYSIS
The supreme court while analyzing the case stated that the inquiry was conducted fairly , and substantial evidence supported the allegation . The Respondent repeated acknowledgement of error and recovery of misappropriated funds does not negate the seriousness of the misconduct . The High court ruling relating to the lapse of evidence and procedural flaws was not supported by the records .While the misconduct was serious , the punishment of dismissal was deemed excessive considering the respondent’s long service and recovery of funds . A lesser penalty could achieve the objective of disciplinary action while considering the mitigating factors.
JUDGMENT
The court after analyzing all the matters and after hearing both the parties granted partial appeal reinstated the finding of the disciplinary inquiry that the respondent misconduct was established and also modified the respondent penalty by reducing the respondent pay by one stage for a year without cumulative effect or impact of pension and also directed the bank to pay the retirement benefits within 4 months of retirement.
CONCLUSION
The cort has maintained the balance between the disciplinary actions and uphold the professional standards proportion of punishment . The supreme court acknowledged the gravity of the respondent’s misconduct and moderated the penalty . And also highlighted the importance of fairness, proportionality, and the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity in financial institutions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY PRINCE KUMAR
