Ram Dhari Vats vs Deputy General Manager And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1889 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. This order would dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th November, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.

2. The appellant herein was working as an Assistant Manager at the Narela Branch of Syndicate Bank, Delhi. While discharging his duties as such, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for various misconducts by issuing a charge sheet on 25.11.1996. The aforesaid charge sheet issued to the appellant contained specific and definite charges against the appellant leveling allegation that the appellant while functioning as Assistant Manager at Baghpat Branch abused his official position and sanctioned/released six loans amounting to Rs. 60,000/- by committing various irregularities detrimental to the interests of the bank. It was also alleged in his charge sheet and the imputation of charges that the appellant also committed irregularities such as sanctioning loans without assessing the credit requirements of the party and without placing on record the past business pattern, anticipated business pattern, current assets and liabilities etc. and without obtaining no due certificate from the local bank. The appellant submitted his reply to the said show cause notice which was found to be not satisfactory consequent upon which the disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer conducted the Inquiry and on completion thereof submitted his report on 6.7.1998. In the said report the Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of 3 charges, namely, charges 4,5 and 6 whereas he held that the charge No. 1 as partly proved, whereas the charges 2 and 3 were not proved at all.

3. On receipt of the aforesaid report from the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority on appreciation of the records held that he disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the charges 1,2 and 3, whereas he would agree with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the charges 4,5 and 6. The Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that all the charges against the appellant stood proved on the basis of the evidence on record. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, recorded his tentative view of disagreement and sent the same to the appellant along with the report of the Inquiry Officer requiring the appellant to submit his show cause. After receiving the reply of the appellant and on perusal of the records an order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 28.11.1988 holding the appellant guilty of all the charges and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was considered and dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 10.3.1999. The appellant being aggrieved filed a writ petition in this Court which was heard by the learned Single Judge and by the impugned judgment and order the said writ petition was dismissed for which the learned Single Judge recorded detailed reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. The aforesaid findings and the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge are under challenge in this appeal on which we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

4. Several contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant before us. One of the submissions of the counsel appearing for the appellant was that the very basis of the charge, that is, advancing of the loans to non-existent persons was not only not established during the inquiry but, in fact, some of the borrowers have themselves appeared before the Inquiry Officer and some other subsequently written to the bank acknowledging that they had taken loans from the bank. In the said context it was submitted that if the principal charge had failed nothing survived in the departmental proceedings to proceed against the appellant. It was also sought to be submitted that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority were perverse. Counsel appearing for the appellant sought to place before us certain additional documents by filing a short note after the arguments were over. We have considered the said note submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. Some of the documents annexed therewith appear to be not part of the record either before the Inquiry Officer or before the Disciplinary Authority and, therefore, we cannot take notice of those documents at this stage. Counsel appearing for the appellant read out a part of the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer and on the basis thereof sought to submit before us that even the bank has stated that there was no lapse on the part of the staff member or officer. It was also submitted that one surety was not examined as a witness in the inquiry. As against the allegation that the appellant had sanctioned loan without proper verification, it was submitted that in some cases signatures on introduction forms were obtained and verified by a staff of the bank.

5. We have given our due attention to the said submission but, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid contentions are based on details of the evidence received during the course of the inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority have extensively appreciated the evidence on record and have given reasons as to why they have held the appellant guilty of the charges. This is not the stage where we should re-examine and re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and come to a contrary finding that the appellant was not guilty of the charge. In any case the said findings cannot be said to be perverse. The Appellate Authority in his order has clearly recorded that during the inquiry it was fully established that loan was sanctioned without establishing the antecedents of the party and also without ascertaining and establishing the source and margin money and also without ascertaining the exact purpose of the loan. The Appellate Authority has also held that it is established that co-obligation of the staff members was obtained without permission from the competent authority and that one of the borrowers who is a distant relative of some of the staff was not doing any business at Baghpat. The Appellate Authority has also held that the evidence adduced by the management regarding OSLRT 2/89 to establish that the loan was sanctioned without placing on record the past business pattern, other current assets, current liabilities, net use of the loan proceeds etc. was not ensured, could not be dislodged during the course of the inquiry. These findings which are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are findings of fact.

6. Similar contentions were also raised before the learned Single Judge contending, inter alia, that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority are perverse. The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the records, held that the said contention is totally misplaced. We have also looked into the findings recorded. In the light of the records and on perusal of the same, we find that the findings recorded cannot be said to be perverse. There are enough materials on record to prove and establish the charge leveled against the appellant and, therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as also of the Appellate Authority.

7. It is a settled law that even where no financial loss was caused to the bank but where it is proved that the employee as a Bank Manager exceeded his authority the charge of misconduct would stand attracted. The aforesaid ratio was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik . The ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, in our considered opinion, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It was also sought to be submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that subsequent repayments of loans by the borrowers which was also brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority should have been taken as a mitigating stand. We are unable to accept the said contention for the simple reason that on the date when the charge sheet was drawn up such payment was not forthcoming. Even otherwise there are other instances which are mentioned in the charge sheet and proved in the enquiry proceedings recording non-verification of particulars of the borrowers etc. which could not be countenanced by the appellant. The allegations, which are leveled against him and also found to be proved in the departmental proceedings, would not in any manner indicate that the appellant worked as a prudent Manager of the bank and was also capable of protecting the interests and welfare of the bank.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.' There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.