Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Kaur vs Punjab And Sind Bank And Ors on 23 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
CWP-21313-2021 1 2024:PHHC:008812
201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-21313-2021
Date of Decision:23.01.2024
BALBIR KAUR ......... Petitioner
Versus
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND ORS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of charge
sheet dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) whereby petitioner has been
called upon to submit her statement of defence with respect to allegations
made in the charge sheet.
2. The petitioner joined respondent Bank on 09.10.1996 as a
Clerk. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Management
Grade Scale-1 in 2010. The petitioner was further promoted to the post of
Middle Management Grade Scale-II in 2014. A charge sheet dated
11.01.2018 came to be served upon petitioner. The said charge sheet was
issued under regulation 6(1) for Major Penalty in terms of Punjab & Sind
Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation' 1981 (for
short 'Regulations 1981'). An Enquiry Officer was appointed who after
completing enquiry submitted report dated 20.09.2019. On the basis of
report of Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority passed order of
punishment dated 31.12.2019 whereby petitioner was reduced to a lower
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
CWP-21313-2021 2 2024:PHHC:008812
grade i.e. from MMGS-II to JMGS-I. The petitioner preferred appeal
against the said order and Appellate authority vide order dated
04.06.2020 dismissed the same. The petitioner filed mercy petition before
Executive Director who issued show cause notice dated 24.11.2020
calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why quantum of penalty
should not be enhanced. The petitioner filed her reply to the show cause
notice and Executive Director vide order dated 14.12.2020 ordered to
compulsorily retire the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was relieved from services vide order dated
14.12.2020. After retirement of the petitioner, the respondent issued
impugned charge sheet dated 06.09.2021 with respect to 7 loans
sanctioned to different borrowers. It is apt to notice that all the loans were
sanctioned during January' 2016 to November' 2016.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per
Regulation 48 of Punjab and Sind Bank (Employees') Pension
Regulations, 1995 (for short 'Regulation 1995'). No departmental
proceedings can be instituted after 4 years from the date of event, if the
employee has retired and proceedings have not been instituted prior to the
retirement. The allegation against petitioner is that she wrongly
sanctioned loan during January' 2016 to November' 2016, thus, all the
events which are foundation of impugned charge sheet took place prior to
4 years from the date of institution of proceedings.
In support of his contention, Mr. Khurana, cited judgment of
Delhi High Court in Baljit Singh Handa Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank 2021
SCC OnLine Del 653.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
CWP-21313-2021 3 2024:PHHC:008812
petitioner has sanctioned loan in violation of instructions of the Bank and
date of sanctioned of loan cannot be treated as date of event. The
sanctioned loan A/c were declared NP at a later stage so date of
declaration of any account as NPA is relevant date.
6. I have heard the arguments of both sides and with the able
assistance of learned counsels perused the record.
7. The conceded position emerging from the record is that the
petitioner retired from respondent Bank on 15.12.2020. The impugned
charge sheet was issued on 06.09.2021. The foundation of impugned
charge sheet is loan sanctioned by petitioner to 7 different entities. The
loan was sanctioned during January' 2016 to November' 2016. The
respondent Bank declared aforesaid loan A/c as NPA on different dates.
The details of loan sanctioned and declaration of account as NPA is as
below:
Sr. Name of Borrower Sanction Sanction Present NPA w.e.f
No. & Account No. Date Amount Outstanding
(In lakh) (In lakh)-
As on date
1. Sh. Lakhwinder 13.01.2016 7.5 13.19 31.03.2017
Singh S/o Sh.
Mukhtiar Singh,
Account
No.01881200000434
01881200000441 20.01.2016 4.0 06.70 31.03.2017
(date of sanction
20.01.2016, amount
of sanction 4.0 lac)
Sr. Name of Borrower & Sanction Sanction Present NPA w.e.f
No. Account No. Date Amount Outstanding
(In lakh) (In lakh)-
As on date
2. Sh. Santosh Kumar 19.02.2016 7.00 12.40 29.12.2016
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal,
Account
No.01881200000457
01881200000468 09.03.2016 4.5 07.89 31.03.2017
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
CWP-21313-2021 4 2024:PHHC:008812
Sr. Name of Borrower & Sanction Sanction Present NPA w.e.f
No. Account No. Date Amount Outstanding
(In lakh) (In lakh)-
As on date
3. Sh. Sukhbir Singh 03.03.2016 9.93 11.50 29.12.2016
S/o Gurmukh Singh
and Smt. Rupinder
Kaur W/o Sh.
Sukhvir Singh,
Account
No.01881200000464
Sr. Name of Borrower & Sanction Sanction Present NPA w.e.f
No. Account No. Date Amount Outstanding
(In lakh) (In lakh)-
As on date
4. Mrs. Indu Kumari, 11.05.2016 10.50 17.59 30.06.2017
W/o Sh. Vinod
Kumar, Vinod
Kumar S/o Sh. Jaram
Ram Account
No.01881200000502
Sr. Name of Borrower & Sanction Sanction Present NPA w.e.f
No. Account No. Date Amount Outstanding
(In lakh) (In lakh)-
As on date
5. Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o 19.05.2016 06.00 10.92 31.03.2017
Rajeshwar Dass,
Account
No.01881200000509
01881200000517 01.06.2016 03.00 4.85 31.03.2017
Sr. Name of Borrower & Sanction Sanction Present NPA w.e.f
No. Account No. Date Amount Outstanding
(In lakh) (In lakh)-
As on date
6. Mrs. Urmila Devi 06.10.2016 9.79 11.86 28.02.2018
W/o Sh. Ram
Prashad Gupta,
Account
No.01881200000562
Sr. Name of Borrower & Sanction Sanction Present NPA w.e.f
No. Account No. Date Amount Outstanding
(In lakh) (In lakh)-
As on date
7. Sh. Mahesh Singh 21.11.2016 09.00 08.90 31.03.2017
S/o Sh. Ram Singh,
Account
No.01881200000557
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
CWP-21313-2021 5 2024:PHHC:008812
8. The entire controversy is centered around interpretation of
Regulation 48 of Regulation 1995 which is reproduced as below:
"48. Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank
(1) The competent authority may withhold or
withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether
permanently or for a specified period, and order
recovery from pension of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if in any
departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is
found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or
criminal breach of trust or forgery or acts done
fraudulently during the period of his service.
Provided that the Board shall be consulted before any
final orders are passed.
Provided further that where a part of pension is
withheld or withdrawn the amount of pension drawn
by a pensioner shall not be less than the minimum
pension payable under these regulations:
Provided also that departmental proceedings, if
instituted while the employee was in service, shall,
after the retirement of the employee, be deemed to be
proceedings under these regulations and shall be
continued and concluded by the authority by which
they were commenced in the same manner as if the
employee had continued in service.
(2) No departmental proceedings, if not instituted
while the employee was in service, shall be instituted
in respect of an event which took place more than four
years before such institution;
Provided that the disciplinary proceedings so
instituted shall be in accordance with the procedure
applicable to disciplinary proceedings in relation to
the employee during the period of his service.
(3) Where the Competent Authority orders recovery of
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
CWP-21313-2021 6 2024:PHHC:008812
pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not
ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of
the pension admissible on the date of retirement of
employee;"
9. Delhi High Court in Baljit Singh Handa (Supra) had
occasion to advert with expression 'event' and period of 4 years
limitation contemplated by Rule 48. The Court has held that date of
sanction of loan is date of 'event'. The Court has held:
"3. The short issue that arises for consideration in all
these petitions is whether departmental proceedings
can be initiated against an employee who has retired
from the services of the respondent bank when it is in
respect of an event which took place more than four
years before the institution of the proceedings, in view
of Punjab and Sind Bank (Employees) Pension
Regulations, 1995 ('Pension Regulations', for short).
Xxx xxx xxx
69. I am not in agreement with the submission made
by Ms. Bajaj for the simple reason that the word
'event' as stipulated in Regulation 48 (2) of Pension
Regulations has to be seen from the perspective of the
charges framed against the petitioners herein. As
noted from the charges reproduced above, the subject
matter of the same being that the petitioners prior to
their retirement and also preceding the period of more
than 4 years from the date of issuance of charge sheets
have recommended (the dates of sanctioning being
February 13, 2012, March 30, 2012 in respect of W.P.
(C) 2846/2017; August 29, 2011, September 29, 2011,
March 30, 2012 and June 14, 2012 in respect of W.P.
(C) 3910/2017; and August 30, 2011, September 29,
2011, April 2, 2012 and June 14, 2012 in respect of
W.P.(C) 3915/2017) sanction of cash credit facilities,
enhancement of ODP limit and sanction of BG limit.
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
CWP-21313-2021 7 2024:PHHC:008812
The accounts of the borrowers becoming NPA are not
the subject matter of the allegations in their respective
charge sheets. Hence, the facilities/accounts
sanctioned by the petitioner may have turned NPAs
but since the very subject matter of the charges is with
regard to sanction given by the petitioners for such
loans, the plea is unsustainable. It can also be said
that the facilities/accounts turning NPAs can be
because of the borrowers having failed to re-pay the
loans/credits availed and such a charge surely cannot
be imputed against the petitioners. If that be so, the
limitation of four years has to be necessarily seen
from the date when the sanction was given by these
officers/petitioners for various facilities which
resulted in the accounts becoming NPA.
Xxx xxx xxx
75. That apart, I find that the Staff Accountability
Reports dated November 28, 2014 (in W.P.(C)
2846/2017), January 29, 2014, February 4, 2014 and
February 10, 2014 (in W.P.(C) 3910/217 and W.P. (C)
3915/2017) indicts the petitioners of their
misdemeanor. In other words, the misconduct by the
petitioners had come to the notice of the respondent
Bank in the year 2014 itself. The respondent Bank
could have initiated the disciplinary proceedings
immediately thereafter to be well within the limitation
of 4 years in terms of Regulation 48(2). Any procedure
like issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioners
seeking their reply and to follow the procedure to
declare the A/cs, NPA surely will not extend the
limitation nor such a power is contemplated under the
Regulation 48(2). Moreover, it is a settled position of
law as held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Brajendra Singh Yambem (supra) that if the manner of
particular act is prescribed under the Statute then the
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
CWP-21313-2021 8 2024:PHHC:008812
same must be done in that manner or not at all.
10. Before applying afore-cited Regulation and judgment of
Delhi High Court to the facts of present case, it would be apposite to look
at allegations made in the charge sheet. For the sake of brevity and to
avoid repetition, charges with respect to first loan A/c are reproduced as
below:
"Statement of Allegations
Ms. Balbir Kaur (B10420)-Ex Officer, while working as
Branch In-charge at Nandpur (N0188) Branch under
Ludhiana Zone from 07.11.2015 to 21.02.2017, has
committed lapses/irregularities in appraising/sanctioning of
housing loans, as detail hereunder:
Sr. Name of Borrower & Sanction Sanction Present If NPA,
No. Account No. Date Amount Outstanding w.e.f
(In lakh) (In lakh)-
As on date
1. Sh. Lakhwinder Singh 13.01.20 7.5 13.19 31.03.201
Singh, Account
No.01881200000434
01881200000441 (date 20.01.20 4.0 06.70 31.03.201
20.01.2016, amount of
sanction 4.0 lac)
"A. She did not ascertain the genuineness of ITRS,
permanent source of Income and repayment capacity of the
borrower. Total Income of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh in his ITR
for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2013-14 have been
shown Rs. 476630/- and Rs. 322170/- but no record have
been found with Income Tax Department. Thus, these ITRs
are fabricated and fake. The Photocopies of these ITRs were
not verified with originals and no proof in conformity with
the genuineness of these ITRs was obtained.
B. She did not ensure genuineness of ITRs of the guarantor.
Income of Guarantor Mrs. Amarjit Kaur in her ITRs for the
assessment years 2014-15 and 2013-14 have been shown Rs.
309840/- and Rs. 284930/- but no record have been found
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
CWP-21313-2021 9 2024:PHHC:008812
with Income tax Department. Thus, these ITRs are fabricated
and fake. The Photocopies of ITRs were not verified with
originals and no proof in conformity with the genuineness of
these ITRs was obtained.
C. She failed to ensure the profession of the borrower. As
per Credit Report dated 13.01.2016 and 20.01.2016 and also
in computation of income with ITRs for the years 2015-16,
2014-15 and 2013-14 of Lakhwinder Singh, income are
shown as Business but no proof of business was taken to
ensure the profession.
D. She did not ensure the networth of borrower as no
supporting documents were obtained in support of networth
Rs. 77.40 lakh and 3 properties mentioned in the credit
report dated 13.01.2016 and 20.01.2016 of Sh. Lakhwinder
Singh.
E. She did not conduct pre sanction visit/physical
verification of the property and BM/Acctt., report was also
not prepared.
F. She did not make pre sanction visit to the residence of the
borrower to gather market Intelligence and genuineness of
the borrower before sanctioning of the loan.
G. She disburse the loan of Rs. 4.00 lakh for Renovation of
ground floor and construction of first floor and Second
Floor within a short period of 28 (Twenty Eight) days
without obtaining progress report on different stages of
construction/renovation.
H. She failed to conduct post sanction visit. Further
Utilization certificate and House completion is also not on
Bank's record.
I. She failed to ensure the end use of Bank's fund as detailed
hereunder:-
1. There was cost estimate dated 04.04.2016 of
Innovative Engineers to Renovate the Ground floor for Rs.
390950/- and construction of first floor for Rs. 170000/- but
as per latest valuation report dated 16.06.2019 of M/s Aakar
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
CWP-21313-2021 10 2024:PHHC:008812
Architect house is build only upto ground floor. Thus first
floor was not constructed.
2. As per old valuation report dated 23.11.2015 of
Innovative engineers constructed value of ground floor
474512/- and as per new valuation report dated 16.05.2019
of M/s Aakar Architects constructed value of ground floor is
Rs. 452250/-. Thus, no renovation of ground floor was also
made. As per latest valuation report Present realizable value
of the property is only Rs. 896750/- and total outstanding is
Rs. 18.16 Lakh. Thus, huge Bank's funds is in stake."
11. From the perusal of sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 48, it
is quite evident that departmental proceedings against a retired employee
cannot be initiated with respect to an 'event' which took place more than
4 years before such institution. The respondent has issued notice with
respect to loan sanctioned by petitioner. The loan was sanctioned during
January' 2016 to November' 2016. As per respondent, date of sanction of
loan is not relevant whereas date of declaration of any account as NPA is
relevant. The contention of the respondent cannot be countenanced
because offence, if any, takes place on the date of sanctioned of loan. An
illegality stands committed on the date of sanctioning of loan. An account
may be declared NPA, at any stage, may be after 5 or 10 years from the
date of sanction.
The expression 'event' has not been defined in the aforesaid
regulation and it needs to be considered in the light of facts and
circumstances of each case. In the instant case, there is allegation that
petitioner has sanctioned loan in violation of guidelines of the respondent
Bank. A conspectus of charge sheet discloses that allegation against
petitioner is that she did not follow norms and bank guidelines while
sanctioning loan. The date of sanction of loan is apparently date of
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
CWP-21313-2021 11 2024:PHHC:008812
'event'. The limitation starts from the date of sanction of loan and not
from the date of declaration of an account as NPA. It is further apt to
notice that there is allegation with respect to 7 loan accounts and only one
out of 7 accounts was declared NPA within 4 years prior to impugned
charge sheet.
12. In the wake of aforesaid facts and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that impugned notice has been issued in violation
of limitation period contemplated by Regulation 48(2) of Regulation
1995. The present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly
allowed. The impugned charge sheet dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) is
hereby set aside.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
23.01.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008812
11 of 11
