Rajendra Shankarrao Satputaley vs Central Bank Of India Thr. Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9343 Bom

                                 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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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]





                                10                  wp4945.11