05/10, 07:25] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1842382164517630321?t=ufHV0H564RyKFwzL4J3RDQ&s=08Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan allowed a writ appeal filed by State Bank of India (SBI) and reversed an order passed by a single judge, who had set aside the punishment imposed on an employee, ordering the payment of all service benefits to him.“When the respondent (M. Palaniappan) had acted prejudicial to
[05/10, 19:13] sekarreporter1: ADVERTISEMENTTAMIL NADU3 Mins ReadHigh standard of integrity & honesty is expected of bank employees, says Madras High CourtPublished / Updated- October 05, 2024 12:44 ISTMOHAMED IMRANULLAH S.File photo of a person counting money. Image used for representational purposes sonly | Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto Listen to articleUpholds the punishment of removal from service imposed on a bank employee for having fraudulently encashed a cheque for ₹15,000A high standard of integrity and honesty is expected of bank employees since they deal with the money of the public, and it would only be appropriate to remove from service any such employee found guilty of misappropriation, the Madras High Court has held.A Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan allowed a writ appeal filed by State Bank of India (SBI) and reversed an order passed by a single judge, who had set aside the punishment imposed on an employee, ordering the payment of all service benefits to him.“When the respondent (M. Palaniappan) had acted prejudicial to the interest of the customer, which will also erode the public trust over the bank… we are of the considered view that the punishment imposed is not disproportionate or shocking our conscience; rather, it is proportionate to the charges,” the Bench wrote.SBI counsel Chevanan Mohan brought to the notice of the court that the employee was recruited as a clerk in 1998 and posted as an assistant at the Karaikudi branch in 2002. He had then received a cheque issued by a NRE (Non Resident – External) account holder of the bank.ADVERTISEMENTThe cheque for ₹15,000 had been issued by the account holder, Jan Batcha, in favour of Ghouse Myan. Instead of directing Mr. Myan to the cashier for encashing the cheque, the assistant sent him away, stating it would take a few days to draw the money from the account.The assistant, however, produced the cheque before the cashier on the same day and received the money by affixing his signature at the back of the cheque leaf. When Mr. Myan returned to the bank a few days later, the assistant insisted that he wait for a few more days and gave him ₹4,000 alone.When the practice continued, Mr. Myan lodged a complaint with the bank manager, leading to a departmental inquiry. Apart from the charge of fraudulent encashment of the cheque, the assistant was also charged with not reporting for work on time and absenting himself unauthorisedly after lunch hours.The charges stood proved in the inquiry, after which he was dismissed from service without notice in 2004. However, on appeal, the appellate authority modified the punishment to discharge from service. The assistant challenged both the orders in 2005.Allowing his 2005 writ petition on February 7, 2020, the single judge had set aside the punishment and directed SBI to provide him all monetary and consequential benefits by considering him to have continued in service till the age of superannuation. This order was challenged by SBI in 2021.Disposing of the 2021 appeal now, the Division Bench disagreed with the single judge’s view and said courts should not reappraise the evidence in disciplinary proceedings and that their role was limited to the extent of finding out whether the inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner.“When an enquiry is found to be fair and proper, then it is for the disciplinary authority to decide on the punishment to be imposed on delinquent. The courts, in judicial review, must only see whether the decision making process was correct and not the correctness of the decision itself,” Justice Murugan wrote.ADVERTISEMENTRelated TopicsRecommendedHeadlinesNEWS6h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS7h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS10h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPALNEWSOct 04,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024T. RAMAKRISHNANNEWSOct 04,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024S. VIJAY KUMARNEWSOct 04,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024ROHAN PREMKUMARNEWSOct 04,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 04,2024R. SAI VENKATESHNEWSOct 03,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 03,2024D. SURESH KUMARNEWSOct 03,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 03,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 03,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 03,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 03,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 03,2024WILSON THOMASNEWSOct 03,2024MOHAMED IMRANULLAH S.NEWSOct 03,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 02,2024S SUNDARNEWSOct 02,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSOct 02,2024T. RAMAKRISHNANNEWSOct 02,2024MOHAMED IMRANULLAH S.NEWSOct 02,2024SRIRAM V.NEWSOct 01,2024THE HINDU BUREAUExplore more from
The HinduSearch for topics, people, articles…IndiaWorldElectionsTechnologye-PaperScienceDataHealthOpinionNewsBusinessEntertainmentLife & StyleShow More
