Whether employee acting beyond one's authority is guilty of misconduct liable for disciplinary enquiry?

Loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. In the case of a bank, every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear. The functioning of the Bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations.

In the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong

(Before Ajay Kumar Mittal, C.J. and H.S. Thangkhiew, J.)

Shri Gautam Dhar  v.  State Bank of India and Others

Writ Appeal No. 59 of 2017

In

WP(C) No. 191 of 2014

Decided on June 11, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Megh 105 : 2019 Lab IC 2650

Print Page

Whether magistrate can release accused on bail if police fails to produce remand report?

I have perused the impugned order dated 06.10.2016 and the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

"ORDER

Date: 06.10.2016

CR put up today before me on being endorsed with police papers and bail matters by the Hon'ble Addl. D.C. (Judl.)

Accused person Md. Nurul Haque is produced before me today.

No remand report has been submitted by the I/O. Hence, accused Shri. Md Nurul Haque is hereby granted bail for Rs. 50, 000/- with two sureties of the like amount and the following conditions:-

1. That the accused shall not abscond.

2. That the accused shall appear before the court as and when required. However as the accused is unable to furnish sureties today, accused is remanded back to judicial custody.

Accused person states that he can enlarge his own counsel. Fix 20.10.2016 for production.

Sd/-

(Smti. N.M. Momin)

Judicial Magistrate First Class

Shillong Court."

6. On perusal of the said impugned order, it appears and is understood that the learned trial Court below failed to appreciate the criminal jurisprudence, but rather passed an order in a very whimsical manner by passing a statutory provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We all know that while granting bail the Court is mainly guided by Section 437 and Section 167 Cr.P.C. along with other provisions as well as the gravity of offence. But here, it appears that the learned trial Court below has totally put all the procedures and principles on fire and passed a mechanical order without giving any reason before granting such bail.

From record it also appears that before granting bail the Court did not even bother to enquire with the Public Prosecutor or the Prosecuting Inspector as to why remand report had not been placed and simply came to the conclusion that, since there was no remand report, bail is to be granted for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only. In my understanding, the impugned order dated 06.10.2016 is not a "bail order" as it is contrary to the provisions of law. We must remember that the Court is not to do the charity, but to render substantial justice. It is a settled principle of law that it is the duty of the criminal Court to find out the truth and should not miss the ends of justice even if the prosecution fails. But, after reading the impugned order dated 06.10.2016, I find that the concerned Magistrate has forgotten the gravity of offence and principle of criminal justice system, for which I expressed my anguish and displeasure.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG

Crl. Rev. P. No. 6 of 2016

Decided On: 14.10.2016

 State of Meghalaya and Ors.

Vs.

 Md. Nurul Haque

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.R. Sen, J.

Citation: 2017 CRLJ794

Print Page