The Hindu : Front Page : Dishonest bank officers deserve no leniency: Court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Aug 27, 2006

Front Page

Front Page

Dishonest bank officers deserve no leniency: Court

Legal Correspondent

"In banking business devotion, integrity and honesty need to be preserved ... ."

NEW DELHI: Bank officers who, for personal ends, act against the interests of the bank and depositors deserve no leniency and such misconduct must be dealt with severely, the Supreme Court has held.

"It needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty need to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officers so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired," said a Bench of the Court comprising Justice H. K. Sema and Justice A. K. Mathur.

Quoting an earlier judgment of the Court, the Bench said, "if the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are in-built requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands."

Mr. Justice Sema, writing the judgment for the Bench, said "where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable".

The Bench was of the view that good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank.

Further the Bench said, "It is no defence to say that there was no loss or profit resulted when the officer/employee acted without authority."

The Bench said that if the penalty could be lawfully imposed on proved misconduct, the High Court or the Tribunal had no power to use its own discretion. The adequacy of penalty unless it was mala fide was certainly not a matter for the court to concern itself with, the Bench said, and quashed the High Court judgment.

In the instant case the charge against the respondent, Ramesh Dinkar Punde, was that while working as Manager in the Personal Banking Division of the State Bank of India he introduced two persons and got a current account opened in their names.

The two persons deposited funds from a trust but the fixed deposit receipts were issued in their names instead of the trust. The same day the two were given overdraft facility on the basis of the fixed deposits.

The disciplinary authority found him guilty of grave misconduct and he was removed from service.

The High Court set aside the order of removal and directed his reinstatement.

The present appeal by the SBI before the Supreme Court is directed against this judgment.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page