Shri R.K. Jain vs Punjab National Bank And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 2026 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 3-10-2006 and 4-10-2006 directing departmental inquiries in respect of Sh. V.K. Sharma, Ex.-Deputy Manager, Zonal Officer, Chennai and petitioner Sh. R.K. Jain, Manager (U/S), BO: Anand Vihar, Delhi which heretofore were being conducted jointly, be done separately. The charges against the petitioner were as under:

ARTICLE I He abused his official position and extended undue favor while sanctioning/disbursing credit facilities in 14 Cash Credit accounts, he purchased cheques from employees/ relatives/friends of Nangia and Rana family beyond his delegated powers, he unauthorisedly enhanced cash credit limits from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 50 lacs in 4 cash credit accounts and unauthorisedly sanctioned 2 CC limits of Rs. 50 lacs each thereby causing unlawful gain to the borrowers and wrongful substantial loss to the bank.

ARTICLE II while sanctioning the various credit facilities, he failed to observe pre-sanction appraisal such as proper assessment of the limits, computation of PBF and calculation of drawing power and released/disbursed the facilities to various parties at far flung areas without execution of proper loan documents and stamp papers affixed bear dates subsequent to the original date of execution of documents. He also failed to observe post-sanction safeguards specially ensuring end use of funds. While enhancing/releasing the fresh limits, he failed to obtain proper title deeds for mortgage/creation of charge as collateral securities thus jeopardizing the bank's interest.

ARTICLE III He frequently purchased cheques local/outstation drawn by group concerns, thus purchased accommodation cheques. He failed to inform returning of the cheques to the controlling office. He exceeded his vested powers by purchasing ODDs related to the group concerns and failed to report unauthorized DDs to the controlling office. He detained the ODDs unauthorisedly and failed to dispatch/lodge the cheques in clearing in time, detrimental to the bank's interest. He purchased draft other than first payee issued from different branches different bank unauthorisedly thus jeopardizing the bank's interest.

ARTICLE IV

He sanctioned four car loans by way of accommodation to members of one family group for purchase of old cars from the family members of the borrowers. Further, the cars belong to Nangia family on which Nangia family had already taken loans from other financial institutions resulting into multiple finance.

Thus, Shri Jain failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence which is unbecoming of an officer employee and constitute misconduct in terms of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of PNB Officers' Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1977.

2. A memorandum stating the facts in detail on the basis of which these charges were framed was annexed to the charge sheet. In reply to the charge sheet the petitioner, inter alia, stated that Sh. V.K. Sharma, the then Senior General Manager, North Delhi had been taking keen interest in sanctioning credit facilities to certain borrowers and as per his desires and oral instructions, he sanctioned ad hoc enhancement and released credit facilities in favor of certain borrowers. The reply then contended that Sh.V.K.Sharma, his superior had impliedly confirmed his actions and had given him appreciation for the work done by him. This was followed by a charge sheet given to above named Sh. V.K. Sharma. However, in the meantime, an inquiry was instituted and Sh. A.P. Goel, Senior Regional Manager was appointed to enquire into the charges. The petitioner made a representation dated 4-2-2004 to charge sheet Senior Regional Manager and other officials of the regional body who were also involved in similar transactions and to hold a joint inquiry. He also filed a writ petition which was disposed of vide an order dated 27-2-2004. A joint inquiry was, thereafter, initiated against the petitioner and Sh.V.K.Sharma and the charge sheet was issued against Sh.V.K.Sharma on 26-6-2002. The respondent No. 4 Sh. Mitter Sen, Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Central Vigilance Commission was then appointed as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner filed another writ petition challenging the inquiry in view of his reply which was decided on 8-11-2004 and an appeal from that was decided by the Division Bench of this Court, vide an order dated 6-9-2005. The petitioner was directed to raise all pleas before the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority. The inquiry, thereafter, started and by now inspection and verification of documents has been done. The petitioner, thereafter, has been served with the impugned order of 3-10-2006 and 4-10-2006.

3. By then, Sh.V.K.Sharma had superannuated. The relevant portion of the order dated 3-10-2006 says that on account of his superannuation, the departmental proceedings are being continued against him under the provisions of Regulation 20(3) of Punjab National Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, that Sh.V.K.Sharma has verified the listed documents and has been provided with an additional (defense) documents whereas the petitioner is yet to complete the verification of listed documents and that the charges against the two officers were for acting in different capacities and were not similar.

4. A copy of the charge sheet issued to Sh. V.K. Sharma has been placed on record by the petitioner. The charge against Sh.V.K.Sharma is failure to take corrective action in respect of credit facilities allowed by the Manager, B.O. Anand Vihar, Delhi and to protect the interest of the Bank. Thus, the nature of allegation against the petitioner and those against Sh.V.K.Sharma were distinct. The charges against the two officers were not dependent on each other. Although, they could be enquired into jointly, they can also be enquire into separately.

5. The petitioner has drawn my attention to Rule 10 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. This also has an enabling provision and does not bind the management of the respondent Bank to hold a common inquiry whenever more than one officer is involved in same or similar misconduct.

6. More importantly, the petitioner is required to show any prejudice caused by separate inquiries. The petitioner's counsel Mr. Piyush Sharma has failed to show any prejudice to the petitioner if the inquiry against the petitioner is separated from the inquiry against Sh.V.K.Sharma. The charge against the petitioner will have to be proved by producing witnesses in the inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner will be entitled to cross examine those witnesses and to produce his own evidence in rebuttal. There is no merit in this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed in liming.