(h) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit or proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case;"
02. The factual matrix propounded by the petitioner in the instant petition
would reveal that he.the petitioner herein, joined the services of J&K Grameen
Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") in the year 1982 as Cashier-cum-
Clerk and got promoted to the level of Officer Scale-I on account of his
satisfactory service rendered. On 01.04.2014, the Bank states to have opened a
new branch at R.S. Pura and posted the petitioner therein and instructed to bring
the branch in profit by September, 2014 whereupon the petitioner worked hard
making the branch run in profits.
Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have been transferred and posted to
SimbalMorh Branch, which branch was running in losses and had a deposit of Rs.
23 crores against which an advance of Rs. 5.47 crores had been made, and upon
taking over the said branch, the petitioner started aggressive lending within the
norms and guidelines of the Bank and reached the branch to a profitable stage of
more than Rs. 50 lakhs as on 31.03.2020.
It is stated that on 16.04.2021, the petitioner came to be served with a
charge-sheet by the Bank,alleging therein that while working as Senior Manager
Branch Office, Simble Morh, he, the petitioner, misused his official position by
extending undue favour to selected borrowers and provided loans to the said
borrowers violating operational guidelines and norms, and in the process
exceeded the power delegated to him by the Bank, thusputting the Bank's funds at
risk.
The petitioner states to have submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet
on 08.06.2021, contending therein that as on the date of reporting the branch, he
had an advance of Rs. 5.47 crores and that even when he left the branch, the total
advance of the branch was Rs. 19.92 crores and that the business of the branch
had increased from Rs. 28.90 crores to Rs. 54 crores, and NPA was reduced from
12.37% to 3.51% and that the branch, which was in loss of Rs. 10.47 crores, was
broughtto a profit of Rs. 34.40 lakhs and that the majority of the irregularities
alleged had been rectified, and as such, made a request for dropping of the charge,
while summing up in the reply that most of the irregularities alleged were on
account of routine mistake and were made due to workload, and in fact the
charges have had been levelled against him for tarnishing his image for ulterior
motives.
It is being next stated that,dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the
petitioner herein, the Bank appointed an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry into
the said charge and also appointed a presenting officer, whereafter,the inquiry
officer conducted an inquiry and concluded the same on 03.02.2022, holding
therein that, except for the charge under Article 3, which is partially proved, all
other charges stand proved against the petitioner.
It is further being stated that, upon conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner
came to be served with a show-cause notice dated 28.02.2022 by the
Disciplinary/Competent Authority, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to
why heshould not be not reduced to the lowest stage in the pay scale of Officer
Scale-II and why all his superannuation benefits should not be released on the
said reduced pay,the said show-cause notice was replied by the petitioner on
30.03.2022, wherein he, the petitioner herein stated that there had been no
malfeasance or pecuniary loss caused intentionally by him to the Bank, and he,
the petitioner also sought a personal hearing in the matter.
It is being further stated that Disciplinary/Competent Authority, however,
accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and issued impugned order dated
25.05.2022.
It is next stated that, aggrieved by the said order of punishment dated
23.05.2022, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the
Bank on 30.06.2022, which appeal came to be disposed of on 02.11.2022, and the
appellate authority, while modifying the punishments imposed upon the petitioner
by the Disciplinary/Competent Authority in terms of order dated
23.05.2022,passed the following order:-
3. That CSO shall extend all his best cooperation to the bank in effecting
smooth recovery/adjustment of all the loan accounts mentioned in the
charge sheet dated 16.04.2021 and proved & established against him
and in case the bank suffers any pecuniary/ financial loss in respect of
these loan accounts the same shall be recovered from monthly
pension/family pension of the CSO."
03. The petitioner herein has maintained the instant petition inter alia on the
following grounds:-
"a. That the order impugned is illegal and contrary to Regulation 39 of the
Jammu and Kashmir Bank (Officer and Service Regulation, Regulation
39(b)(i), therefore, is required to be quashed.
b. That Regulation 39 of the officer and Employees Service Regulation,
2010 provides that an officer/employee who commits a breach of these
Regulations, who displays negligence, inefficiency, indolence or who
commits an act detrimental to the interest of the Bank or in conflict with
its instructions or breach of discipline or guilty of any other misconduct
shall be liable for 1 or more penalties specified in the said Regulation,
however, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is:
i. Censure,
ii. Reduction to the lowest stage in teh scale of pay for indefinite
period;
iii. withholding of pensionary benefits for indefinite period
iv. imposing burden of recovery on a retired emplolyee;
v. Keeping the withheld amount in FD until the recovery in all the
loans are made;
vi. Recovery of the monthly/family pension in respect of the loans
mentioned in the charge sheet;
Except the punishment of censure, all other punishments imposed
are unauthorised by law and beyond the scope of Regulation 39. The
reduction to lower stage has to be for a specified period with a direction
as to whether the officer shall earn increments of pay during the
reductions and whether on expiry of such period of reduction, such
reduction shall or shall not effect of postponing the future increments of
pay. Without complying with this provision 39 (1) (b) (i), the punishment
is imposed which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary authority
and the appellate authority. Hence, the said punishment is not in
accordance with the Regulation and liable to be quashed.
c. That the order impugned further directs the
superannuation benefits shall be released only after smooth recovery of
all the loans mentioned in the charge sheet. The said punishment is not
provided under the Regulation. Regulation 39 (1) (4) provides for
recovery from emoluments or such
other amounts as may be due to him of the whole or part or any
pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of the orders.
The enquiry findings have not quantified the loss caused to the Bank. It is
only mentioned about the sanction of
the amount and overdue as on the date of the charge sheet. All over
dues are not losses caused to the Bank. The ongoing accounts and its
recovery is a routine process. The allegations are regarding
non execution of certain documents and exercising excessive delegated
power in certain accounts. The enquiry officer has not recorded that total
loss caused to the bank by declaring the amount not recoverable from
any particular amount. Hence, the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority is illegal and liable to be quashed.
d. That the rider imposed in the order of punishment that the amount will
be kept on held for an indefinite period until all the loans are recovered is
not empowered under the regulation. The
regulation does not provide such punishment. Having imposed
punishment of censure for the misconduct, another punishment of
recovery could not have been imposed for the same misconduct.
Therefore, the punishment imposed is liable to be
quashed.
e. That the charge mentioned in Table-I is about violation of Head Office
in granting loans in respect of accounts. In these 11 accounts, the
overdue amount was ranging from Rs. 7,7341- to Rs.
2,458/- out of the loans sanctioned between Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh.
The said fact itself shows that the charge is motivated having regard to
the fact that the quantum of overdue amount is negligible. In respect of
Table-2, the allegation is that end-use of the loans sanctioned is not
observed. However, the overdue amount is ranging between Rs.
14,6591- to Rs. 1,0741- out of the loan sanctioned between Rs. 4.5 lakhs
to Rs. 7 lakhs. In respect of Table 3, the major charge in that "Letter of
Authority not on record" and certain other defects in documentation. The
loans sanctioned are of Rs. 5 lakhs and the overdue is between Rs.
24,873/- to
Rs. 4,508/-. Many of these accounts are closed' The pendency of any
one account will be treated as a reason to withhold the pensionary
benefit. Such power is totally arbitrary and not authorized by law and
beyond the Regulations. Hence, the punishment awarded is liable to be
quashed.
f. That the orders impugned are without application of mind. The default
of payment of loan is an inherent risk in lending. The Branch Managers
cannot be made responsible to recover the entire loans granted by them
during their service. The loans granted will be bad for several reasons.
The misconduct can be alleged only when there is dereliction of duty,
disregarding the head office circulars, misusing the discretionary powers
for ulterior objects. In the case on hand, when the petitioner took over the
branch, it was under loss and within 3 years the branch was brought to
profit with maximum deposit collections and proportionate lending.
Therefore, the petitioner has not committed any misconduct as alleged by
the respondent."
04. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents, wherein the
petition is being opposed on the premise that the petitioner, during the course of
disciplinary inquiry, admitted the misconduct committed by him while
discharging his duties as Branch Head of BranchSimbalMorh, R.S. Pura, Jammu,
in that the petitioner, misused his official position while performing his duties as
Branch Head, necessitating the holding of a disciplinary inquiry against him,
whereupon appropriate punishment came to be imposed upon himfor acts of
omission and commission.
It is denied that the impugned orders came to be passed against the
petitioner in an arbitrary manner or in violation of the J&K Grameen Bank
(Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 and instead, the penalty
came to be imposed upon the petitioner in accordance with the said Regulations,
after following due procedure and affording the petitioner a full opportunity of
hearing.
It is further stated that prior to the imposition of the punishment in terms of
the order under challenge, the petitioner had been previouslycharge-sheeted twice
during his service for various other acts of omission and commission and was
also punished in terms of the order of punishment dated 16.04.2016.
It is next stated that despite operation of the guidelines contained in
Circular (03) dated 02.04.2019 and Circular (8) dated 03.04.2020, regulating the
working of the officers of the Bank as also the powers for sanctioning loans and
advances, the petitioner compromised with the said guidelines and,in utter
disregard thereto, granted loan/advances to the borrowers, putting the financial
interest of Bank in jeopardy, necessitatinginitiation of disciplinary enquiry against
the petitioner based upon the charge-sheet dated 06.04.2021, which inquiry
culminated into an official report of the Inquiry Officer holding the petitioner
liable for commission of misconduct, resulting in issuance of an order of
punishment initially by the competent/disciplinary authority vide order dated
23.05.2022, followed by the order of the Board of Directors/Appellate Authority
dated 02.11.2022, impugned in the instant petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
05. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be relevant to refer to the
Regulations of 39 and 40 of J&K Grameen Bank (Officers and Service)
Regulations of 2010 being germane to the controversy herein as under:-
"39. Penalties-Without prejudice to the foregoing regulations of this Chapter, an
officer or employee who commits a breach of these regulations or who displays
negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who commits acts detrimental to the
interests of the Bank or in conflict with its instructions, or who commits a breach
of discipline or is guilty of any other acts of misconduct, shall be liable for any
one or more penalties as follows, namely:-
1. Officers:
(a) Minor Penalties.
(i) censure;
(ii) withholding or stoppage of increments of pay without cumulative effect;
(iii) withholding of promotion;
(iv) recovery from emoluments or such other amounts as may be due to him,
of the whole or part or any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by
negligence or breach of orders;
(v) reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period not exceedin
two years without cumulative effect;
(b) Major Penalties
(i) save as provided in item (v) of clause (a) of sub-regulation(1) of
regulation 39, reduction to a lower stage in tiem scale of pay for a
specified period with further directions as to whether or not the
officer shall earn increments of pay during the period of such
reduction and whether on expiry of such period the reduction shall or
shall not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his
pay;
(ii) reduction to a lower grade or post;
(iii) compulsory retirement;
(iv) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future
employment;
(v) dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future
employment. ....
.....
.......
.......
......."
40.Waiver of the procedure:-The requirements of regulation 39 may be waived
by the Competent Authority;-
(a) if the fact on the basis of which penalty is to be imposed on the officer or
employee have been established in the Court of Law or Court martial;or
(b) Where the officer or employee has been convicted on a criminal charge; or
(c) where the officer or employee has been absconding; or
(d) where it is for any other reason impracticable to communicate with the officer
or employee; or
(e) where it is reasonably not practicable to observe the procedure specified
under regulation 39.
As is manifest from above the aforesaid Regulations provide for imposition
of a penalty, be it minor or major against an officer or employee of the Bank who
in essence commits an act of misconduct including display negligence,
inefficiency or indolence or commits acts detrimental to the interests of the Bank
inasmuch as commits breach of discipline.
06. Reverting back to the case in hand, record would tend to show that the
petitioner previously have had been chargesheeted on 15.04.2015 for the acts of
omission and commission which charges are extracted and reproduced as under:-
You, Sh. Rachhpal Singh, Manager, Code No. 1318, are therefore charged to have:-
1. Acted with dishonest and malafide intentions to cheat the bank by resorting to
intentional reckless lending by making deliberate deviation of land down lending norms,
procedures & guidelines of the loan scheme showing undue favours to the parties
mentioned above in the Table-I and thereby putting sizable bank funds amounting to Rs.
138.47 lac to apprehensive loss at the cost and detrimental to the interests of the bank.
2. Acted prejudicial to the interests of the bank by ignoring recovery aspect of the said
loan amounts&recycling of banks funds, thereby rendering bank interests unsafe at the
cost and to the detriment of bank.
3. Failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in total breach of trust
reposed in you as an officer of the bank in abuse of your official position/ oath/ rules of the
bank.
You Sh. Rachhpal Singh, Manager, Code No. 1318, are therefore charged to
have acted;
1. Prejudicial to the interest of the bank by grossly abusing your official position and
shown scant attention in responding to the communications of the Head Office and found
violation of service regulations in flagrant manner, resorting to insubordination by not
complying with and obeying the orders and directions issued from time to time given to
you by the persons under whose jurisdiction, superintendence and control you are being
placed com posted.
2. You have failed miserably to serve the blank with honesty and faithfully and has not
shown your utmost endeavour to promote the interest of the bank and has not shown
courtesy and intentions in all the transactions and dealings with bank as well as
customers.
The above acts allegedly committed by you are gross misconducts on your part and are
punishable under Regulation No. 39(1) (b) of J&K Grameen Bank (Officers & Employees)
Service Regulations, 2010.
07. Perusal of the record would also reveal that, for the aforesaid charges, and
after holding an enquiry thereto, the petitioner came to be imposed the following
punishments in terms of order dated 16.04.2016:-
1. His one annual increment of pay due in the year 2016 is withheld / stopped for the
period of two years on non cumulative basis.
2. His is personally liable/ accountable for smooth recovery/adjustment of all the loan
accounts as mentioned in Table-I and II of Charge Sheet dated 15.04.2015.
3. He is censured and sternly warned to be careful and not to repeat such acts of
misconduct in future.
CSO is further directed to rectify all the irregularities committed by him in the loan
documents mentioned in the Charge Sheet dated 15.04.2015 to safeguard the interest of
the institution and shall obtain a certificate from the Manager RS Pura certifying therein
that all the loan documents are in order, free from irregularities and legally enforceable in
the court of law.
08. It also emerges from the record that the petitioner herein did not question
either the said charge-sheet dated 15.04.2015, the enquiry conducted therein, or
the order of punishment dated 16.04.2016.
09. It is an admitted fact that petitioner has called in question the impugned
order dated 23.05.2022, being an order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner
by the disciplinary authority, as also the order dated 02.11.2022, passed by the
appellate authority upon the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid
order of punishment dated 23.05.2022 qua the charges framed against the
petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 16.04.2021 which charges as well are extracted
and reproduced as under:-
Article No. I:
Whereas, you, Mr. Rashpal Singh (Chowdhary), Senior Manager, Code No. 1318, during
your incumbency as Branch Head at B/O Simble Morh of the bank, making gross misuse
of your official position intentionally & deliberately with intend to extend undue favour to
the selected borrowers made lending under Used/Second Hand Cars & Two wheeler
Loan schemes brazenly violating/exceeding the loaning powers delegated by Head Office
circulated from time to time and also flouting the guidelines of the loan schemes at the
cost & risk of the bank funds. To remind you specifically that you unauthorisedly
processed, sanctioned & disbursed loan to the selected borrowers mentioned at S. No. 1,
2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Table-1 given below exceeding the delegated powers of Rs.3.00 Lac
& Rs.1.00 Lac in respect of Used/Second Hand Cars & Two-Wheeler respectively.
Moreover, in respect of the borrowers mentioned at S. No. 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 you had also
unauthorisedly sanctioned & disbursed the loans for purchase of Second Hand Cars,
which were more than five years old in sheer violation of the guidelines/norms of the
Used/Second Hand Cars loan scheme. Besides this, you have committed a number of
serious irregularities in the loan documents obtained by you as mentioned in the Table
given hereunder. You have thus committed flagrant violation of the Head Office
instructions and guidelines of the loan scheme at the cost & detriment to the interests of
the bank and the responsibility to recover these loan accounts therefore devolve on you.
You, Mr. Rashpal Singh (Chowdhary), Senior Manager, Code No. 1318, are therefore,
charged to have:-
1. Acted prejudicial to the interest of the bank by sanctioning & disbursing the
above loans in favour of the borrowers brazenly violating/exceeding the
delegated loaning powers (mentioned at S. No. 1 to 6 of the table) and also
flouting the norms & guidelines of the Used/Second Hand Cars Scheme as well
as Two-wheeler Loan scheme as mentioned in the Table/memorandum of the
charge/s above at the cost & risk of bank funds.
2. Acted in abuse of your official position by showering undue favour to the above
selected borrowers by extending loans to meet some your personal interests at
the cost & risk of the bank funds and thereby breached the confidence & trust
reposed in you as an officer of the bank
3. Acted detrimental to the interests of the bank by committing major acts of
omission & commission while sanctioning & disbursing and also while obtaining
the loan documents in respect of above loan cases as mentioned in above Table
at the cost and detriment to the interests of the bank.
Article No. II.
Whereas, you, Mr. Rashpal Singh (Chowdhary), Senior Manager, Code No. 1318, during
your incumbency as Branch Head at B/O Simble Morh of the bank, displaying extreme
negligence made lending of Education Loans violating the lending norms, guidelines &
instructions issued by the Head Office and also of the loan scheme without ascertaining
the end use of bank funds. To remind you specifically that you unauthorisedly processed,
sanctioned & disbursed the Education Loans of Rs.7.00 lac in favour of the selected
borrowers namely Gagan Deep Singh and Harvinder Singh mentioned at S. No. 1 & 2 of
the Table- II below overstepping/beyond the delegated powers and thereby violated the
extant guidelines/instructions of the Head Office. As per standing Head Office
instructions/guidelines enforce, the loaning powers to sanction the Education Loans
under reference vests with the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Jammu. Hence, both
the loan cases under reference were mandatorily required to be got sanctioned from
Regional Manager, Regional Office, Jammu. Moreover, you have committed a number of
serious irregularities in the loan documents obtained by you from the borrowers
mentioned at S. No. 1 to 5 in the Table-II given hereunder. You have thus committed
flagrant violation of the Head Office instructions and guidelines of the loan scheme at the
cost & detriment to the interests of the bank.
You, Mr. Rashpal Singh (Chowdhary), Senior Manager, Code No. 1318, are therefore,
charged to have:-
1. Acted prejudicial to the interest of the bank by sanctioning & disbursing the
above loans showering undue favour to the selected borrowers mentioned at S.
No. 1 & 2 of the Table overstepping/beyond the delegated loaning powers and
also flouting the norms & guidelines of the Education Loan scheme as mentioned
in the Table/memorandum of the charge/s above at the cost & risk of bank funds.
2. Acted in serious dereliction of the duties by committing the acts of omission &
commission as mentioned in the memorandum of the charges/Table above at the
cost & risk of the bank funds and thereby shattered the confidence & trust
reposed in you as an officer of the bank.
Article No. III:
Whereas, you, Mr. Rashpal Singh (Chowdhary), Senior Manager, Code No. 1318, during
your incumbency as Branch Head at B/O Simble Morh of the bank, recklessly &
displaying extreme negligence sanctioned/disbursed as many as 51 housing loan cases
favouring below noted parties without adhering the norms & guidelines of the loan
scheme at the cost & detriment to the interests of the bank. To remind you specifically
that you, acting negligently in flagrant violation of the guidelines in force of the Housing
Loan Scheme of the bank, had sanctioned/disbursed the housing loan cases in single
installment instead of disbursing in phased manner in sheer violation of the extant
guidelines of the loan scheme/norms mostly under your discretionary powers, in favour of
the borrowers mentioned at S. No. 1 to 36 in Table-III given below at the cost & risk of the
bank funds. So much so, you brazenly flouting the norms of the loan scheme did not
obtain the copy of approved map plan from the borrowers mentioned at S. No. 1, 2, 4 to
7, 9 to 49 of the Table given below and also without obtaining/got registering the Primary
Security in the form of Mortgage of House along with land underneath in respect of
borrower mentioned at S. No. 7 and also plot of land in respect of the borrowers
mentioned at S. No. 50 & 51 of the Table below to damage the interests of the bank.
Besides, a large number of irregularities have been observed in the loan documents
obtained by you which have been stated against the name of each borrower in the Table
given hereunder. You have thus committed flagrant violation of the Head Office
instructions and guidelines of the loan scheme at the cost & detriment to the interests of
the bank.
You, Mr. Rashpal Singh (Chowdhary), Senior Manager, Code No. 1318, are therefore,
charged to have
1. Acted prejudicial to the interest of the bank by sanctioning & disbursing the
above loans in favour of the borrowers brazenly violating/flouting the norma &
quidelines of the Housing Loan scheme as mentioned in the Table/memorandum
of the charge/s above at the cost & risk of bank funds.
2. Acted detrimental to the interests of the bank by committing major acts of
omission & commission while sanctioning & disbursing and also while obtaining
the pre & post sanction loan documents in respect of above loan cases as
mentioned in above Table/memorandum of the changes at the cost and
detriment to the interests of the bank.
3. Acted in abuse of your official position by showering undue favour to the above
selected borrowers by extending loans to meet some of your personal interests
at the cost & risk of the bank funds and thereby breached the confidence & trust
reposed in you as an officer of the bank.
Article No. IV:
Whereas, you, Mr. Rashpal Singh (Chowdhary), Senior Manager, Code No. 1318, during
your incumbency as Branch Head at B/O Simble Morh of the bank had committed the
below- noted acts of dereliction of duties of very serious nature in total contravention of
laid down norms/guidelines of the loan schemes, which tantamount to gross misconduct
under rules governing your services in the bank:-
1. Deviating PMEGP, Easy Finance & GCC Loan Schemes guidelines proof of
ownership of business premises and/or Rent Deed not obtained in 30
trade/GCC Loan Accounts No.302326420-3728 & 3731; 302326732-06 and
302302065-35, 36, 39 to 63 to safeguard the interests of the bank. Loan A/c
No. 302326420-3728 is running NPA at the cost & risk of the bank funds.
2. Brazenly violating the guidelines of "Passenger Buses for Private
Educational Institutions Scheme, personal guarantee of Trustees/promoters
not obtained in Loan Accounts No. 302326595-02 & 302326595-03 to
damage the interests of the bank.
You Mr. Rashpal Singh (Chowdhary), Senior Manager, Code No. 1318, are therefore,
charged to have:-
1. Acted prejudicial to the interests of the bank, by committing serious
irregularities while processing & executing loan documents of the above noted
loan cases, etc. in blatant violation of the PMEGP, Easy Finance, GCC loan and
Passenger Buses for Private Educational Institutions Loan schemes of the bank
and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity & devotion to duty in total breach
of trust reposed in you as an officer of the bank, and
2. Committed serious acts of dereliction of duties in total contravention to Head
Office instructions & guidelines as mentioned in the memorandum of the charges
at the cost & risk of the bank funds.
The above acts allegedly committed by you are gross misconducts on your part and are
punishable under Regulation No. 39(1) of J&K Grameen Bank (Officers and Employees)
Service Regulations, 2010.
10. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner herein qua the aforesaid
charges framed in charge-sheet dated 16.04.2021, came to be punished in terms of
impugned order dated 23.05.2022 as follows:-
1. That CSO is censured for the acts of misconduct committed by him;
2. That the Basic Pay of CSO is reduced to lowest stage (1st stage of pay i.e. Rs. 48170/-)
in the Pay Scale of Officer Scale II and all his superannuation benefits shall be released
on the reduced pay; however, in accordance to punishment order no. JKGB/H.O/
DISP/ORDER/16-300 dated 16.04.2016, the superannuation benefits shall be released
only after the smooth recover/adjustment of all the loan accounts mentioned in Charge
sheet dated 15.04.2015. The withheld amount under reference to kept in the shape of
FDR under lien to the Chairman, Head Office, Jammu, of the bank.
3. That CSO shall extend all his best cooperation to the bank in effecting smooth
recovery/adjustment of all the loan accounts mentioned in the charge sheet dated
16.04.2021 and proved & established against him and in case the bank suffers any
pecuniary/financial loss in respect of these loan accounts the same shall be recovered
from monthly pension/family pension of the CSO.
11. Record would also reveal that the said punishment imposed upon the
petitioner by the disciplinary authority, however, came to be revised by the
appellate authority in terms of impugned order dated 02.11.2022 as follows:-
1. The Basic pay of appellant that was earlier reduced to lowest stage (1 st stage of pay
i.e. Rs 48170 /-) in the Pay Scale of Officer Scale II vide order dated 23.05.2022 shall be
revised to lowest stage (1st stage of Pay i.e. 63480/-) in the Pay scale of officer Scale-III
and all superannuation benefits due to appellant shall be released on the revised/reduced
pay; however, in accordance to punishment order no. JKGB/H.O/DISP? Order/ 16-300
dated 16.04.2016, the appellant was already held personally liable for smooth
recovery/adjustment of all the loan accounts mentioned in charge-sheet dated
15.04.2015. Further, in the instant cases, considering the probable future loss, his
superannuation benefits shall be released only after the smooth recovery/adjustment of
all the loan accounts mentioned in the charge-sheet/s dated 15.04.2015 and 16.04.2021.
The withheld amount under reference and arrears of salary/increment if any or otherwise
shall be kept in the shape of FDR (after adjustment of staff/other loans availed by
appellant, if any) under lien to the Chairman, Head Office, Jammu, of the bank.
2. That appellant shall continue to receive Pension calculated on Basic Pay 9 (i.e. Rs
48170/-) reduced vide Disciplinary Order JKGB/HO/DP&TB/2022-563 dated 23.05.2022.
The difference between revised pension (basic pay of Rs. 63,840/) and earlier pension
(basic Pay of Rs. 48,170/-) shall be withheld monthly in the shape of a term deposit
account preferably Recurring deposit of one year, under Lien of Chairman, J&K Grameen
Bank till recovery of all the loan accounts mentioned in the charge-sheet dated
16.04.2021. The excess amount on account of revision of Dearness allowance (half
yearly) or otherwise during this one year shall be credited into a saving account
maintained in the name of appellant pledged to Chairman J&K Grameen Bank. The
proceeds of Recurring deposit on maturity shall be credited into aforementioned shaving
account and accumulated balance in the said account shall be reinvested in the shape of
CCR under lien to Chairman, J&K Grameen Bank for a period of 01 year with automatic
renewal facility. Moreover, interest accrued on these CCR's shall be released yearly in
favour of the appellant. The whole process shall be repeated successfully till adjustment/
recovery of accounts mentioned in Charge Sheet dated 16.04.2021. Furthermore,
appellant is advised to ensure smooth recovery/adjustment of all the accounts mentioned
in the charge sheet dated 16.04.2021 within its stipulated repayment period. If any of the
account/s under reference remains unadjusted even after respective repayment period or
tuned NPA, maximum of 01 year grace period shall be granted to recover/adjust these
supra account/s and after lapse of grace period, the balance outstanding in these loan
account/s shall be appropriated from the withheld CCR's of appellant irrespective of legal
remedies available/ being exercised, already exercised by the bank to recover the loan
amount/s.
12. As is manifest from the above orders, both the disciplinary as well as the
appellate authority have imposed the aforesaid punishments upon the petitioner on
the basis of the earlier order of punishment dated 16.04.2016 which could not
have been relied by the respondents under any circumstances, in that, the charges
framed against the petitioner in the year 2015 have had been distinct and different
from the charges framed in the year 2021. The respondents have inter-mixed the
whole matter, unreasonably and unfairly, while overlooking the ambit, scope and
parameters of a departmental enquiry as laid down in law which postulates that
the purpose of holding a departmental enquiry against a delinquent is not only to
establish the charges levelled against him or to impose a penalty, but also to
ascertain the truth of the matter, thus requiring a fair action on the part of the
concerned authorities and that law is also settled that the object of holding a
departmental enquiry is to enable the disciplinary authority to hold an
investigation into the charges framed against a delinquent so that the disciplinary
authority, in due course, may consider the evidence adduced and decide whether
the charges are proved or not and that in such disciplinary enquiry, the enquiry
officer, acts as a delegate of the disciplinary authority, who has to record the
findings in the enquiry for consideration by the disciplinary authority, whereupon
the disciplinary authority takes a decision and arrives at a conclusion as to
whether or not the delinquent is guilty.
It is also a settled position of law that a disciplinary enquiry is not a mere
formality, but a serious proceeding initiated to give the delinquent a chance to
meet the charges and to prove the innocence. A reference in this regard to the
judgements of the Apex Court passed in case titled as "Parvin Kumar Vs. Union
of India", reported in 2020(9) SCC 471, would be relevant wherein at para 26, as
under:-
"26...............Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial
review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and
not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is
necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted
on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is
concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent
officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether
rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or
conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the
power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a
finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some
evidence. ........ If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable
person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with
the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it
appropriate to the facts of each case."
13. It is significant to mention here that as per the record available on the file
the Bank did not suffer any financial loss on account of the acts of omission and
commission alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and also that the
said acts were not tainted with mala fide intentions, and also that the petitioner did
not derive any pecuniary gains therefrom. A categoric, unambiguous observation
and finding in this regard has been made and recorded not only by the Enquiry
Officer, who conducted theinquiry into the charges of 2021 levelled against the
petitioner, but also by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order dated
02.11.2022.
14. Perusal of the record available on the file also tends to show that the
respondents have imposed the punishments contained in the impugned orders
against the petitioner purportedly for the alleged acts of omission and commission
against a probable loss the Bank may suffer thereof. Pertinently, during the
hearing of the instant matter, the counsel for the respondents, in compliance to an
order passed by this Court, produced the statement of the accounts in regard to
which the acts of omission and commission stand attributed to the petitioner,
perusal of which statement reflects that out of the 67 accounts in question, 27
accounts stand closed as on date, 40 accounts are running, and out of the said 40
accounts, 2 accounts stand declaredas non-performing assets (NPA), and six other
accounts are under the category of probable non-performing assets.
15. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has retired from the service of the
Bank after the imposition of the punishment contained in the impugned orders,
and his retiral benefits continue to be retained by the respondents in terms of
impugned orders.
16. Perusal of the enquiry report, based upon which the impugned orders have
been passed by the respondents against the petitioner, do not signify even the said
enquiry has not been conducted appropriately, reasonably and fairly, in that, qua
various charges, the enquiry officer has concluded on one hand that though most
of the irregularities committed by the petitioner did exist, yet the same stand
rectified; and also, in respect of some charges has opined that though the same
stand proved against the petitioner yet has concluded that there has been no mala
fide intention or motive found against the petitioner in this regard.
17. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the next
question for consideration of this Court would be as to whether the punishment
imposed upon the petitioner by the respondents has been proportionate to the
misconduct attributed to the petitioner. However, before proceeding to advert to
the same, a reference to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Pravin Kumar
(Supra), would be relevant wherein at 36, following has been laid down:-
36.......It is a settled legal proposition that the Disciplinary Authority has
wide discretion in imposing punishment for a proved delinquency,
subject of course to principles of proportionality and fair play. Such
requirements emanate from Article 14 itself, which prohibits State
authorities from treating varying degrees of misdeeds with the same
broad stroke. Determination of such proportionality is a function of not
only the action or intention of the delinquent, but must also factor the
financial effect and societal implication of such misconduct. But unlike in
criminal cases, in matters of disciplinary proceedings Courts only
interfere on grounds of proportionality when they find that the
punishment awarded is inordinate to a high degree, or if the conscience
of the Court itself is shocked. Thus, whereas imposition of major penalty
(like dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank) would be discriminatory
and impermissible for trivial misdeeds; but for grave offences there is a
need to send a clear message of deterrence to the society. Charges such
as corruption, misappropriation and gross indiscipline are prime
examples of the latter category, and ought to be dealt with strictly".
18. A cumulative consideration of the matter in hand, it is manifest and
indisputable that the petitioner has not acted malafidely while discharging his
duties in the Bank and has not derived any pecuniary gains thereof qua the acts
attributed to him, which at the most could said to be procedural lapses in
discharge of his duties, having overlooked the norms and guidelines in vogue in
the Bank. Therefore, under these circumstances, the only inescapable conclusion
that could be drawn qua the proportionality of punishment imposed upon the
petitioner in terms of impugned orders cannot, but said to be not only harsh, but
also disproportionate, having regard to the aforesaid principles of law laid down
by the Apex Court in the judgements supra.
19. Viewed thus, for what has been observed, considered and analyzed
hereinabove, the petition succeeds, as a consequence whereof, the impugned order
dated 23.05.2022 read with order dated 02.11.2022 shall stand quashed without
disturbing the punishment imposed upon the petitioner in terms of earlier order of
punishment dated 16.04.2016
20. Disposed of.
(Javed Iqbal Wani)
Judge
Jammu
15.05.2025
Abinash
Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable? No
