1 wp4945.11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4945 OF 2011
Rajendra Shankarrao Satputaley,
Plot No.322, ABhyankar Nagar,
NAGPUR-440 010. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Central Bank of India,
[Zonal Office, Nagpur] Oriental
Building, 2nd Floor, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur : 440 001.
Through its Assistant General
Manager.
2. Central Bank of India,
[Zonal Office, Nagpur] Oriental
Building, 2nd Floor, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur : 440 001.
Through its Chief Manager-HRD.
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:35:15 :::
2 wp4945.11
3. Central Bank of India,
[Zonal Office, Nagpur] Oriental
Building, 2nd Floor, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur : 440 001.
Through its General Manager.
4. Central Bank of India,
[Zonal Office, Nagpur] Oriental
Building, 2nd Floor, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur : 440 001.
Through its Zonal Manager. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.Alok Daga, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.N.W.Almelkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 6th DECEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.K.Deshpande, J) :
1. The challenge in this petition is to the charge sheet dt.20.11.2008 issued to the petitioner levelling charges against him for conducting departmental inquiry. The petitioner also challenges the ultimate order of punishment of compulsorily retiring him from service by an order dt.16.11.2009. The order was confirmed by the ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:35:15 ::: 3 wp4945.11 Appellate Authority in an appeal on 28.5.2010 and hence, this order is also subject matter of challenge.
2. We find that the age of superannuation of the petitioner as a Branch Manager was 60 years and upon completion of 58 years of service, he was compulsorily retired by way of punishment on 16.11.2009.
3. Total four charges were framed against the petitioner as per the Memorandum dt.20.11.2008. All the charges are held to be proved against the petitioner. The charge no.3, which is crucial, is re- produced below :
"Charge No.3 :
Shri Satputley, while accepting the property for mortgage as security had accepted the Xerox copy of the certified lease deed of Plot No.1468. The said property was in the name of M/s. Syscon Engg. a Partnership firm but he had accepted the mortgage of property through Shri Piyush B. Chahande, in the capacity of Prop. of M/s Syscon Engg. The said property was already in the name & possession of other 18 persons ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:35:15 ::: 4 wp4945.11 since 1989-1990 i.e. prior to Date of Mortgage. Hence, our claim of recovery was rejected by Recovery Officer, DRT, Nagpur as such bank's interest has been jeopardized and Bank can not recover any amount from the said mortgaged property and Bank has incurred loss of amount of more than Rs.12609800/-. "
4. The petitioner was working as a Branch Manager of Central Bank of India at M.I.D.C., Butibori, Branch at Nagpur. The proposal of M/s. Piyush Mining - a proprietary firm for stone crushing for grant of loan of Rs. 50 Lacs was processed. The ultimate Sanctioning Authority of the loan was Regional Office of the Central Bank and the loan was processed through M.I.D.C., Butibori Branch, of which the petitioner was the Branch Manager. The loan was accordingly disbursed to the said concern.
5. A decree was passed on 25.3.2003 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,26,00,000/- against the said borrower and it was put to execution. However, in the execution proceedings, the Recovery Officer passed an order on 29.3.2005 recording the finding that the property mortgaged by way of security of loan, is not available to the Bank. The reason being that the Mortgage deed was executed on ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:35:15 ::: 5 wp4945.11 27.9.1996 and the building was constructed on the land which was subject matter of mortgage consisting of several Apartments and commercial shops in the year 1989-90. As a result of this, the bank has lost the security and suffered the loss.
6. The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 20.11.2008 and after proving the charges, the petitioner was compulsorily retired by way of punishment on 16.11.2009.
7. The main contention of Mr.Alok Daga, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not the Authority to sanction the loan as the amount was over Rs.50 Lacs (for Rs.50 Lacs onwards). The loan proposal was sanctioned by the Regional Office. The petitioner obtained the Title Verification Report from the panel lawyer of the bank and also the Property Valuation Report and all the papers were forwarded along with recommendations to the Regional Office for sanction of loan. According to him, while sanctioning the loan, all such things were verified by the Regional Office and therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for loss of security as per the ultimate order of Recovery Officer passed on 29.3.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon clause ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:35:15 ::: 6 wp4945.11 10.8.1 of Circular dt.19.11.2005 regarding staff accountability policy and has urged that initiation of inquiry by issuing charge sheet on 29.11.2008 was time barred and on that count only, the charge sheet as well as the ultimate punishment are required to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel has relied upon the two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 and another in P.V.Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636.
8. Mr.N.W.Almelkar, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that the fault on the part of petitioner was that the petitioner did not personally visit or inspect the property which was subject matter of Mortgage deed. According to him, on the date of execution of Mortgage deed on 27.9.1996, construction of the Apartment was complete and flat owners were already put in possession of their apartments. He has invited our attention to para no.6 of the Order dt.29.3.2005 passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur. According to him, in this background, personal visit and inspection of the property mortgaged assumed significance and the petitioner having failed to establish this, he was rightly held guilty of the charge.
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:35:15 :::
7 wp4945.11
9. No doubt that the petitioner was not the Authority sanctioning the loan in question, which was sanctioned by the Regional Office. The proposal of loan submitted was processed by the petitioner being the Branch Manager and he obtained the Title Verification Report and the Property Valuation Report from the persons in the panel in the bank. It is for the first time, as per the Order dt.29.3.2005 passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, it transpired that the property mortgaged is not available by way of security for the loan which was advanced and disbursed. It is thereafter that, on 20.11.2008, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr.Daga that the loan was sanctioned in the year 1996 and therefore, issuance of charge sheet was not within the period of limitation as provided in Clause 10.8.1 of the Staff Accountability Policy dt.19.11.2005. The said provision clarifies that the time limit will not apply to the cases of : (1) fraud, (2) other criminal offences and (3) the cases where mala fides are inferable.
10. In our view, had the petitioner visited the spot and personally inspected the property prior to execution of the Mortgage ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:35:15 ::: 8 wp4945.11 deed on 27.9.1996, such event of loosing security could have been averted. The petitioner being the responsible Officer as a Branch Manager, it was for him as a Field Officer to verify the things and take care of the security placed by way of mortgage. It is not expected from the Regional Office to depute certain persons to verify each and every aspect which has been dealt with or supposed to have been taken care of by the Branch Manager, who is a trusted Officer. This would show lack of confidence in the Branch Manager
11. It is only the punishment of compulsory retirement from service, which is imposed upon the petitioner, as a consequence of which the petitioner gets all the benefits including pension upon his pre-mature retirement. His past service is not forfeited and we, therefore, do not find any dis-proportionality in the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakishan (supra) clearly lays down in paragraph 19 that the question as to whether disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated on the ground of delay and laches depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast principle can be laid down. In the facts of this case, we find that there is no question of delay in either ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:35:15 ::: 9 wp4945.11 initiated proceedings or ultimately imposed punishment of compulsory retirement. In view of above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:35:15 ::: 10 wp4945.11 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:35:15 :::