Gopal Vanjani vs State Bank Of India Thr. General ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7470 Bom

                                                                                   wp3671.05
                                                   1




                                                                                       
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                               
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                             Writ Petition No.3671 of 2005




                                                              
            Gopal Vajani,
            aged about 50 years,
            r/o Flat No. E-5, Achraj Towers,
            Chhaoni, Nagpur, 440013.                            .....             PETITIONER




                                               
                                    ...V E R S U S...
                             
            State Bank of India,
            through its General Manager,
            (D & PB) Disciiplinary and Appointing
            Authority, Vigilance Department,
                            
            Local Head Office, Madam Cama Road,
            Post Box No.12, Mumbai-400 021.       ......                         RESPONDENT
      

     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Mr.S. P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. A. Dharmadhikari,
     Advocate for petitioner
   



     Mr. R. M. Bhangade, Advocate for respondent.





     CORAM:- B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.

Date of Reserving the Judgment : November 23, 2016

Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 20th December, 2016

J U D G M E N T [Per : V. M. Deshpande, J.] :

01. The present writ petition is directed against the order of

punishment passed by the respondent on 16.01.2004 together with

wp3671.05

order dated 29.12.2004 passed by the appellate authority and order

dated 11.11.2005 passed by the reviewing authority whereby the

appellate as well as the reviewing authority upheld the order of

punishment dated 16.01.2004 by which the disciplinary and the

appointing authority imposed the penalty of "Removal from service" in

terms of rule 67 (i) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules

(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules" for the sake of brevity).

Factual Matrix:

02. The petitioner entered into the service of the respondent-

State Bank of India (For short the "Bank") in the year 1978. He joined

the services in the Bank as Clerk-cum-typist. In the year 1984, he was

selected as Scale-I officer and in the year 1990 was selected as Scale-II

officer. Thereafter, he was selected as Scale-III officer in the year

1993. According to the petitioner, he participated in the selection

process of Scale-IV officers and was declared successful in the written

examination. However, he could not be selected for the said post as

the interviews for the said post were held on 31.01.2004 and the order

of punishment was served on the petitioner on 29.01.2004.

03. The charges which were levelled against the petitioner were

in respect of the period when the petitioner was discharging his duties

wp3671.05

as Branch Manager at Ballarpur from October-1994 to January-1998.

04. The petitioner is governed by the Rules. On 27.11.2000,

the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet containing articles of

charge and statement of imputation of misconduct for irregularities

committed by him when he was posted at Ballarpur branch of the Bank

as Branch Manager. The charge-sheet was served in terms of Rule 68

(2) (iii) of the Rules.

ig The said charge-sheet was served upon the

petitioner as he, while functioning as Branch Manager at Ballarpur

during the period from October-1994 to January-1998, failed to

discharge his duties with integrity, honesty and diligence and acted in

the manner unbecoming of a bank official and highly prejudicial to the

bank's interest in violation of Rule 50 (4) of the Rules.

05. Following is the gist of the charges along with statement of

imputation served upon the petitioner.

i) That a unit by name M/s. Balaji Vastra Bhandar was

granted DCC limit of Rs.70,000/- in the year 1993. Though, this

account was continuously irregular since its inception, the

petitioner enhanced the limit from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.2,10,000/-.

That while enhancing the limit, the petitioner accepted the face

value sales of Rs.17,20,000/- projected by the unit even though

the actual sales effected in the year 1992-93 and 1993-94 were

wp3671.05

only Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.5,08,000/-. As per the charge,

enhancement in the limit was sanctioned by the petitioner despite

the account being persistently irregular and it was not reported to

the controllers and in the Control Return submitted by him in

respect of the enhancement, he reported the projected sales as

only Rs.7,20,000/- instead of Rs.17,20,000/-. Thus, as per the

charge, the petitioner has unduly accommodated this unit thereby

causing substantial loss to the bank.

ii) The another charge is in respect of Shri Azam Hussain

Biabani and M/s. Azam Hussain Biabani. Shri Azam Hussain

Biabani, a civil contractor was sanctioned a cash credit limit of

Rs.25,00,000/- in November-1995 for executing the civil works for

Government department. After his demise, a newly constituted

partnership firm consisting of his father, brothers and his wife was

granted cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- by the controlling

authority in July-1996 to execute the work order of

Rs.1,38,00,000/- left incomplete by the deceased. While

sanctioning the limit, the controllers had stipulated that the

aggregate outstanding in the account of late Shri Azam Hussain

Biabani and M/s Azam Hussain Biabani should not exceed

Rs.25,00,000/- at any point of time. Ignoring these stipulations,

as per the charge, the petitioner allowed overdrawing in the

wp3671.05

account on 03.06.1997 and instead of bringing down the

outstanding to Rs.25,00,000/-, the petitioner further allowed

drawings by permitting cash payment of cheques in the account

on 06.10.1997 and 31.12.1997 for Rs.4,00,000/- and

Rs.4,28,000/-, resulting aggregate outstanding exceeding the

stipulation of Rs.25,00,000/-. It is also charged that these

overdrawing were not reported to the controller and were also not

referred to the Cheques Referred and Returned Register. These

two accounts were continuously irregular till they were

transferred to Protested Bills Account on 07.01.1998.

iii) The petitioner granted term loan for the purchase of

vehicles to the Road Transport Operators without obtaining blank

transfer forms duly signed by the borrowers.

iv) The petitioner accepted Rs.20,000/- as consideration

for sanctioning the advance of Rs.6,00,000/- to one Shri

Satyanarayan Raju, a contractor.

v) The petitioner demanded and obtained Rs.4,000/- in

cash as consideration for the loan granted to him.

vi) Despite the branch having two Field Officers, the

wp3671.05

entire advances work including the preparation of proposals,

documentation and opening of accounts etc. were handled by the

petitioner himself without involving the Field Officers.

vii) The STDR accounts were opened at the branch by the

petitioner in the name of Shri A. Chandra, Shri B. Jyoti, Shri A.

Bhalchandra and Shir S. Chandra without obtaining the full names

of the depositors. The photographs of the depositors were also

not obtained and affixed on the application forms and signatures

of B.Jyoti on the account opening form was in vernacular but on

the credit voucher, it is in English.

viii) The petitioner sanctioned the credit limit of

Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/- to M/s. Deepali Trading

Corporation (DTC), a proprietary concern of one Shri Yashpal

Arora and M/s. Deepali Roadlines (P) Ltd. (DRL), through Shri

Yashpal Arora and Smt. Deepa Arora as Directors respectively. It

is charged that the petitioner extended undue favour to these

companies by allwoing them to withdraw freely amounts over and

above the sanctioned limits. With the result, the accounts

became irregular by Rs.7,17,000/- and Rs.4,34,000/- on

12.12.1997.

wp3671.05

ix) In violation of the instructions of the Bank, the

petitioner permitted overdrawing continuously in the cash credit

account of M/s. Deepali Trading Corporation (DTC) from June-

1997 to the end of September-1997 without reporting to the

controlling authority.

x) The petitioner, vide branch letter HO/ADV/136 dated

22.09.1997, recommended to the controlling authority to permit

overdrawing of Rs.5,00,000/- to M/s. Deepali Trading Corporation

(DTC) pending sanction to the enhanced working capital limit of

Rs.25,00,000/-, a proposal for which was already submitted by

him. He also sent a reminder to the controlling authority on

03.10.1997. However, on 03.10.1997, without waiting for the

controlling authority's sanction, the petitioner allowed the said

M/s. Deepali Trading Corporation (DTC) to overdraw on their

account up to Rs.5,07,568/-, which fact he did not disclose to the

controlling authority. The petitioner also permitted overdrawing

up to Rs.5,33,779/- on the same day, which fact was also not

advised to the controlling authority. Further, much more

overdrawing were continued till 04.12.1997 as stated in the

charge-sheet.

xi) Even though the petitioner had not received sanction

wp3671.05

from the sanctioning authority for overdrawing up to

Rs.5,00,000/-, he recklessly allowed the excess overdrawing in

the account of M/s. Deepali Trading Corporation (DTC) to the

extent of Rs.8,00,000/- from 05.12.1997 for seven days and

sought sanction on 05.12.1997. However, he suppressed the fact

from the controlling authority that he had already permitted

overdrawing in excess of Rs.8,00,000/- on various dates which

was not reported to the controlling authority. Even after sanction

of the enhanced limit of Rs.25,00,000/-, the petitioner again

permitted overdrawing beyond Rs.25,00,000/- continuously

without reporting to the controlling authority.

xii) The petitioner, vide branch letter No. HO/ADV/230

dated 06.12.1997, recommended to the controlling authority a

temporary overdrawing for Rs.5,00,000/- to M/s. Deepali

Roadlines (P) Ltd. (DRL) over the sanctioned limit of Rs.8,00,000/-.

It is charged in this letter that the petitioner has not disclosed

that he had already granted overdrawing right from 17.07.1997

itself. Thus, it was charged that the petitioner not only shown

undue favour but also concealed material facts from the

controlling authority.

xiii) Despite the fact that temporary overdrawing for seven

wp3671.05

days of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Deepali Roadlines (P)

Ltd. (DRL) over and above cash credit limit of Rs.8,00,000/- was

approved by the controlling authority on 22.12.1997, the

petitioner allowed overdrawing of Rs.5,00,000/- to accept

overdrawing of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was sanctioned and this was

neither reported nor post facto confirmation was obtained from

the controlling authority.

xiv) In order to show undue favour to Shri Yashpal Arora,

the proprietor of M/s. Deepali Trading Corporation (DTC), the

petitioner on 22.12.1997, deducted Rs.6,95,971/- to the account

of M/s. Deepali Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. (DRL) and issued a demand

draft of Rs.4,75,000/- in favour of the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. for

liquidation the housing loan. Thus, the petitioner permitted

diverting the working capital funds by violating the terms and

conditions stipulated at the time of sanctioning the cash credit

facilities to M/s. DRL Pvt. Ltd.

06. In the articles of charge dated 27.11.2000 itself, the

petitioner was directed to submit written statement in his defence in

terms of Rules 68 (2) (iii) of the Rules within a period of 15 days from

the receipt of the charge-sheet.

The petitioner vide his detailed written statement dated

wp3671.05

25.01.2001 and also dated 18.02.2002, filed his written statement of

defence.

On 22.02.2001 the bank appointed Shri V. B. Phadnis,

Officer SNGS-IV to hold and conduct the departmental inquiry to find

out veracity of the charges.

In the departmental inquiry proceeding, the bank was

represented by Presenting officer Shri C. P. Kulkarni, Officer NGS-IV

while the petitioner was represented by his defence representative Shri

R. B. Dubey, Officer SNGS-IV. The preliminary hearing of the

departmental inquiry proceeding was held on 15.02.2002 and also

sittings were held on the subsequent dates. The Inquiry Officer

submitted his inquiry report dated 31.01.2003. The copy of the said

inquiry officer's report was furnished to the petitioner for making his

submissions and the petitioner made his submissions thereto vide his

letter dated 10.04.2003.

07. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 16.01.2004

exercised its powers vested in it under the Rules and imposed the

penalty of removal from service. It was also informed by the said order

that the petitioner has a right to prefer an appeal within a period of 45

days before the appellate authority in terms of Rule 69 (i) and (ii) of

the Rules.

The petitioner availed the said opportunity and filed his

wp3671.05

appeal before the appellate authority on 20.02.2004. The appellate

authority, vide order dated 29.12.2004 dismissed the appeal and

confirmed the order of punishment.

The petitioner further availed the remedy of filing of review

before the reviewing authority. However, since even after the lapse of

4 months, his review petition was not decided, the petitioner

approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on

15.06.2005 by filing the present petition.

During the pendency of the present writ petition, the

reviewing authority dismissed the review petition vide order dated

11.11.2005. The petitioner, therefore, moved an application for

amendment in the present petition to challenge the order of reviewing

the authority also. The said application was allowed and the petitioner

suitably amended his pleadings in the body of petition as well as the

prayer clause. Hence this petition.

Submissions :

08. We have heard Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner-employee and Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned

counsel for the respondent-Bank in extenso.

09. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel that the

wp3671.05

impugned order must go, since second stage advice of the Central

Vigilance Commission [hereinafter referred to as "CVC", for short] was

not forwarded to the petitioner along with the Show-cause-Notice given

by the Disciplinary Authority for the proposed penalty. He submitted

that the said was forwarded to the petitioner along with the order of

punishment dated 16th January, 2004. On this count, it is his

submission that at least from the stage of issuance of the show cause

to the proposed punishment, the action of the Bank is vitiated. Thus,

according to him, matter needs to be remanded to furnish his

submission to the Disciplinary Authority in the light of second stage

advice of CVC.

He invited our attention in that behalf to a communication

dated 28th September, 2000, issued to all Chief Vigilance Officers of

Ministries/Departments of Govt. of India/Nationalized Banks/Public

Sector Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies/Societies etc. This

communication is from the Officer on Special Duty of CVC. The learned

Senior Counsel read out the said communication. He submitted that

from the said, it is clear that the CVC, at present, is being consulted at

two stages in disciplinary proceedings, i.e., first stage is an advice is

obtained on the investigation report before issuance of the charge-

sheet and second stage advice is obtained either on receipt of reply to

the charge-sheet or on receipt of enquiry report. According to him,

since second stage advice is not forwarded to the petitioner, it

wp3671.05

breaches principles of natural justice, as CVC recommendation was

prepared behind the back of the petitioner and without his

participation and, therefore, unless the petitioner's views are obtained,

the entire action must fall. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex

Court in State Bank of India & others Vs. D.C. Aggarwal &

another [(1993) 1 SCC 13].

10.

It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel

that in the present case, there is blatant violation of principles of

natural justice at the hands of the enquiry officer while conducting the

Departmental Enquiry. It is his submission that it was expected from

the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry proceedings strictly by

adhering to principles of natural justice and since the Enquiry Officer

has given a complete go-by to this cardinal principle of law, the entire

enquiry stands vitiated.

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

serious charge like accepting amount for sanctioning loan was found to

be unproved by the Enquiry Officer himself and that on account of

proved charges, the Bank has not suffered any financial loss. He

further submitted that the proved misconduct on the part of the

petitioner could, at the most, would be procedural lapses. Therefore, it

is his submission that the penalty of removal from service imposed

upon the petitioner is disproportionate.

wp3671.05

It is his faint submission that the material, which was placed

before the Enquiry Officer, was such that Enquiry Officer ought not to

have recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioner.

11. In order to buttress his submission in respect of breach of

principles of natural justice, he invited our attention to the proceedings

of Departmental Enquiry dated 14th March, 2002. He pointed out that

since the inception, the petitioner has raised an objection about

exhibiting certain documents filed and sought to be relied upon by the

management. He submitted that a request was made to the Enquiry

Officer that unless the maker of those documents is not examined and

unless an opportunity is given to the petitioner to cross-examine the

maker, the documents must not be exhibited. He, therefore, submitted

that the entire exercise of holding a departmental enquiry against the

petitioner was nothing but a farce and hence the impugned order of

removal from service and consequent order of dismissal of his

departmental appeal and order of review dismissing the review

petition must go.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel Shri R.M. Bhangde

strenuously urged before us that the Enquiry Officer has strictly

followed the principles of natural justice. He invited our attention that

the the petitioner was duly represented by the officer who was

wp3671.05

equivalent in rank of the Presenting Officer who represented the

management in the enquiry. He further submitted that the documents

which the Bank relied upon were duly verified by the petitioner and it

is the petitioner who never doubted the genuineness and authenticity

of the documents, except the few ones in respect of which though the

petitioner is submitting that the maker of those documents is not

examined, the same has no relevance, since those documents were

the outcome of discharging official duty. He further submitted that at

no point of time, petitioner and his representative were either

obstructed or restrained by the management or the enquiry officer

from cross-examining the witnesses. He further submitted that fullest

opportunity was also given to the petitioner to examine his defence

witnesses, which opportunity is availed by the petitioner. He submitted

that a detailed submission in the nature of proof for defence was also

made by the petitioner and his every objection is duly adjudicated by

the Enquiry Officer, as it could be seen from a detailed Enquiry Report

which the petitioner himself has filed before this Court along with the

petition.

13. The learned counsel for the Bank submitted that reliance

placed by the learned Senior Adv., for the petitioner on the

communication from CVC is highly misplaced. He submitted that

though the second stage advice was not forwarded to the petitioner, it

wp3671.05

has no relevance in the present case, inasmuch as, according to him,

the Disciplinary Authority has not even referred to the CVC advice,

leave apart its consideration before imposing the penalty. In that

behalf, he relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank

of India & others Vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra & others [ (2011) 2 SCC

316].

14.

He further submitted that even assuming for the sake of

argument that the documents which, according to the petitioner, were

wrongly exhibited and were considered by the Enquiry Officer, will not

make much difference in the ultimate result. He submitted that there

are certain charges which stand duly proved against the petitioner

without considering those documents. He, therefore, submitted that

even some of the charges are duly proved, then the Disciplinary

Authority was perfectly justified in imposing the penalty. For the said

proposition, he relied upon the Constitutional Bench verdict of Hon'ble

Apex Court in State of Orissa & others Vs. Bidyabhushan

Mohapatra [AIR 1963 SCC 779].

He submitted that the petitioner was discharging his duties

as a Branch Manager and, therefore, exercise of higher standard of

honesty and integrity was expected from him. He submitted that the

charges which are duly proved clearly show that the petitioner has

suppressed material facts from the controlling authority and such an

wp3671.05

act, according to learned counsel for the Bank, is highly objectionable.

He, therefore, submitted that in the given set of facts, this Court

should be very slow while exercising the writ jurisdiction, and prayed

for dismissal of the petition.

Consideration :

15.

In so far as first submission of the learned Senior Counsel

for the petitioner is concerned, it rallies behind the communication

dated 28th September, 2000. To a pertinent question from the Court,

the learned Senior Counsel fairly submitted that there is no whisper in

respect of the second stage advice in the order of punishment imposed

by the Disciplinary Authority.

Thus, it is crystal clear that the second stage advice of CVC

was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Further, it is clear

from the impugned order of punishment that neither the second stage

advice of the CVC was a foundation, nor it weighed in the mind of the

Disciplinary Authority before imposing the punishment. Further,

though the petitioner in the petition has pleaded that non-issuance of

CVC's recommendation resulted into violation of principles of natural

justice, the petition is blissfully silent regarding the prejudice. In our

view, since the Disciplinary Authority has not considered the second

stage advice of the CVC, the question of prejudice is completely ruled

wp3671.05

out.

16. It would be beneficial to reproduce paragraph 35 from the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & ors.

Vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra & others [cited supra], which reads thus:-

"35. In our opinion, the Division Bench has

erroneously relied on the judgment in D.C. Aggarwal case . As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, in that case this Court considered a situation where the

disciplinary authority passed an elaborate order regarding findings against the charge-sheeted officer agreeing on each charge on which CVC had found

against him. In these circumstances, this Court observed that : (SCC p. 16, para 5)

"5. ....The order is vitiated not because of mechanical exercise of powers or for non- supply of the inquiry report but for relying

and acting on material which was not only irrelevant but could not have been looked

into. Purpose of supplying document is to contest its veracity or give explanation. Effect of non-supply of the report of inquiry officer before imposition of punishment need not be gone into nor is it necessary to

consider validity of sub-rule (5). But non- supply of CVC's recommendation which was prepared behind the back of the respondent without his participation, and one does not know on what material which was not only sent to the disciplinary authority but was

examined and relied on, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just enquiry."

These observations would not be applicable in the facts of the present case as the disciplinary authority did not take into consideration any recommendations of CVC,. The judgment was, therefore, rightly distinguished by the learned Single Judge."

wp3671.05

17. Since it is abundantly clear that the recommendations of

CVC were not taken into consideration by the authority concerned, in

our view, the submission put forth by the learned Senior Counsel that

the petition needs to be allowed on this short count is required to be

rejected.

18.

The proceeding dated 14th March, 2002 shows that the

petitioner and his representative verified all the copies of the

documents filed by the Bank and tallied them with the originals. It is

also not the case of the petitioner that the copies of the documents

which the Bank has relied were not supplied to him. According to

petitioner, Exhs. 12, 12A, 12B, 16, 17 and 30 are the statements made

by the various persons and, therefore, unless those are produced in

the enquiry, the statements cannot be exhibited. In so far as Exhs. 9,

9/1 to 9/5, 9A, 9A1 to A3 are concerned, unless an opportunity to

cross-examine the maker of these documents is given, they cannot be

admitted.

19. A detailed enquiry report is placed on record along with the

petition. The enquiry officer, in our view, has rightly reached to the

conclusion that the principles of Evidence Act cannot be made

applicable in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings strictly. Further,

wp3671.05

Exhs. 12, 12A, 12B, 16, 17 and 30 are duly proved by the Bank

witnesses 1 to 3 who deposed that the said are their handwritings.

Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that cross-examination of

these Bank witnesses was not permitted by the enquiry officer. Once

the petitioner has availed the opportunity of the cross-examination -

vis-a-vis those documents and nothing could be elicited from the bank

witnesses in respect of the truthfulness and genuineness of these

documents, the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail those

documents and the finding of the Enquiry Officer in the writ jurisdiction

on the ground of principles of natural justice.

Further, the documents [Exhs. 12, 12A, 12B, 16, 17 and 30 ]

are prepared and sent by the responsible officers and, in fact, it is the

observation of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner has himself

produced the identical documents and relied upon the same in his

defence and those documents are exhibited as Exhs. D21, 78/1 to 5.

In so far as the documents - P Exhs. 9 to 9/5, 9A to 9A3 and P. Exhs.41,

42, 42A, 42B, 43A and 43B are concerned, in our view, no fault can be

found in the evidence recorded by the enquiry officer that since these

are the copies of official record, these documents can very well be

taken on record and considered.

20. It is well settled that in the matter of disciplinary

proceedings, the High Court should exercise a limited power.

wp3671.05

21. When the misconduct of a delinquent stood proved by

evidence and material on record, it is not open to the Court to

substitute the said findings by its own. When a finding of fact is

recorded in enquiry, it should not be interfered with unless such finding

is based on "no evidence" or is perverse. In the present case, the

learned Senior Counsel was unable to point out that the finding

recorded by the Enquiry Officer is based on "no evidence."

22. It is impermissible to assail in the Court the factual findings

of the disciplinary authority recorded after holding a detailed enquiry

and after going through elaborate evidence unless the petitioner points

out the blatant breach of principles of natural justice.

23. In the present case, before issuance of the charge-sheet, a

show cause was given to the petitioner and being dissatisfied with the

reply to the show cause, a charge-sheet was served upon the

petitioner. The charges were well articulated and defined. Those were

not vague charges. Therefore, at the time of issuance of the charge-

sheet itself, the petitioner was aware of type of charges he was

required to face during the course of the disciplinary enquiry. The

petitioner was well represented throughout during the course of the

enquiry proceedings by a representative of his choice. His

wp3671.05

representative was of the same rank as that of the Presenting Officer

who represented the Bank in the enquiry proceedings. Further, it is

not in dispute that all the documents which the Bank relied upon were

duly supplied to the petitioner and not only that before actual

commencement of recording of the evidence, the petitioner and his

representative verified those copies and tallied the same with their

originals. The petitioner was afforded the opportunity to cross-

examine the bank witnesses. He availed of that opportunity. The

petitioner has also examined defence witnesses and also filed the

documents in support of his case. Lastly, a detailed defence brief was

also submitted by the petitioner. All this amply shows that right from

the beginning, the principles of natural justice were duly complied with

by the Bank and the Enquiry Officer. Even after the culmination of the

enquiry, a copy of Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner to

submit his views on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The

petitioner forwarded his submissions to the disciplinary authority under

his letter dated 10th April, 2003. The impugned order of imposing

punishment of removal from service shows that the disciplinary

authority has minutely considered the submissions of the petitioner in

respect of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer against him.

Thus, the fullest opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend

himself. No doubt, it is true that the petitioner was absolved by the

enquiry officer of the charge that he accepted amount for sanctioning

wp3671.05

loan. However, the other charges, which were proved during the

course of the enquiry are serious in nature. The enquiry Officer, on the

basis of the available evidence on record came to the conclusion,

which shows that the petitioner has committed breaches in not

reporting to the controlling authority.

24. We cannot forget that the petitioner, at the relevant time,

was discharging his duties as a Branch Manager. It would be useful to

reproduce paragraph 14 from the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial

Bank & others Vs. P.C. Kakkar [ (2003) 4 SCC 364], which reads

thus:-

"14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher

standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty,

devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik , it is no defence available to say

that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the

wp3671.05

High Court."

25. In our view, the counsel for the bank has rightly relied on

paragraph 9 of the Judgment of Constitutional Bench in State of Orissa

& ors. Vs. Bidyabhushan Mohaptra [cited supra]. It is clear that some

of the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved even without

considering the documents to which the petitioner had objected. In

that view of the matter, the law laid down by the Constitution Bench

of Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid State of Orissa Vs. Bidyabhushan

Mohapatra applies to the present case with full force.

26. The aforesaid discussion leads us to pass the following

order:-

ORDER

Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

               Judge                                                     Judge
                                       -0-0-0-0-

     |kahale & hedau|





                                                             wp3671.05