Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 470 (PAT)

Shri Surendra Deo Pandey v. Central Bank Of India

2001-06-22

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2001
Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Petitioner was a Branch Manager in Nasriganj Branch of the respondent Bank and one Narbadeshwar Ojha was Accountant in that very Branch of the Bank at the relevant period. Both were proceeded against in departmental proceedings on more or less similar charges that they had acted in collusion and had liberally sanctioned loans and advances to different account holders without caring for established procedure. It is an admitted factual position that during the absence of petitioner as Branch Manager Sri N. Ojha (the Accountant) was competent to sanction loans and advances and he had actually allowed loans and advances to several borrowers. 2. The main charges against the petitioner were charges no. 1 and 2 as mentioned in the memo of charges (Annexure-1) and a perusal of the enquiry report contained in Annexure-5 shows that the enquiry officer found charges no. 1 and 2 to be partially proved. It is not clear from the enquiry report as to what is the correct implication of charges no. 1 and 2 being partially proved but the finding as recorded suggests that in the opinion of the enquiry officer the petitioner could not escape from the responsibilities of procedural shortcomings and lapses in several cases. For charge nos. 1 and 2 the disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment of dismissal. The other charges i.e.charge nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 relate essentially to the charge that petitioner was not careful in observing the procedures and norms in the grant of loan or in adjusting advances and for these charges i.e. charge nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 he has been granted punishments of reduction of basic pay by different stages. In fact, charge nos. 4 and 7 are only to the effect that petitioner did not take action against Sri Narbadeshwar Ojha, the Accountant. With regard to charge no. 6 to the effect that petitioner failed to take effective follow up action to recover Banks dues from the borrowers, the enquiry officer relied upon the figures that 9.95 lakhs of sanctioned loan (sanctioned between 25.9.1984 to 11.2.1985) had become outstanding on 25.8.1998 as Rs. 15.44 lakhs and hence, the petitioner was guilty of negligence for not taking effective follow up measures. For this charge also the disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment of dismissal. 3. 15.44 lakhs and hence, the petitioner was guilty of negligence for not taking effective follow up measures. For this charge also the disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment of dismissal. 3. To challenge the impugned order of punishment dated 12.10.1992 as contained in Annexure-8 and the appellate order confirming the said punishment as contained in Annexure-10 dated 9.7.1993, it was first submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a perusal of the memo of charges would show that allegedly allegations had been made against the petitioner by borrowers and villagers but during the departmental enquiry no borrower or villager was examined as a witness and only two officials were examined as witness who could only prove documents which could at best show that the petitioner had committed procedural lapses and thus, there was no evidence to establish the allegation of any mala fide on the part of the petitioner. It was next submitted that charge nos. 1 and 2 which were the main and serious charges had been found to be proved only partially and it was not proper for the disciplinary authority to award a punishment of dismissal on such a finding. It was next submitted that charge no. 6 has been wrongly found to have been established when it is clear from Annexure-3 that petitioner was suspended in October 1985 itself and kept under suspension for long 8 years till conclusion of the proceeding and in such circumstances, it was absurd to hold the petitioner guilty for not taking suitable steps for recovery of the loans and advances. The punishment of dismissal for this charge was, therefore, also illegal, and in any case, disproportionate. 4. It was lastly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that with more or less similar allegations and charges, which is evident from Annexure-4/A, the memo of charges against Sri N. Ojha, the Accountant, Shri Ojha had challenged the order of his dismissal through CWJC No. 2219 of 1993 and after going through the materials and the nature of charges this Court interfered with the order of dismissal vide judgment and order dated 29.9.1995. A perusal of the certified copy of the aforesaid judgment dated 29.9.1995 passed in the case of Shri Narbadeshwar Ojha V/s. The Central Bank of India and ors. A perusal of the certified copy of the aforesaid judgment dated 29.9.1995 passed in the case of Shri Narbadeshwar Ojha V/s. The Central Bank of India and ors. (CWJC No. 2219/1993) shows that after going through the nature of allegations and findings this Court, in the case of the Accountant held that the findings of irregularity in granting loans by not following the procedure was established but not the other charges and on the established charge of irregularity, this Court found the punishment of dismissal from service to be shockingly disproportionate and hence, the matter was remitted to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner of that case and to inflict proper and proportionate punishment. It is not in dispute that the Bank accepted the views of this Court in that case and Sri Narbadeshwar Ojha, the Accountant, was awarded other punishments but not dismissal. 5. Considering all the facts and circumstances and specially the fact that petitioner had rendered long and satisfactory service under the Bank and was due to superannuate on 1st February, 1994 itself, and also in view of judgment of this Court In the case of Sri Narbadeshwar Ojha, the Accountant, who shared similar charges, this Court is of the view that punishment of dismissal awarded by the respondents for charge nos. 1, 2 and 6 is shockingly disproportionate to the established charge of procedural irregularity and lapses in grant of loans. In fact, charge no. 6 must be hefd to have been based upon non est materials and without considering a relevant fact that petitioner had been placed under suspension since 1985 itself. Charges 1 and 2 had also been found proved only partially. In such circumstances, the punishment of dismissal as awarded by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 12.10.1992 (Annexure-8) and its confirmation by the appellate authority vide order dated 9.7.1993 (Annexure-10) cannot be sustained. 6. This Court is aware that petitioner cannot be reinstated in service because he reached the age of superannuation in 1994 itself. In such circumstances, the matter is remitted back to the respondent authorities for passing fresh order of punishment with regard to charges 1 and 2 only which should be proportionate to the established charge of procedural lapses. 6. This Court is aware that petitioner cannot be reinstated in service because he reached the age of superannuation in 1994 itself. In such circumstances, the matter is remitted back to the respondent authorities for passing fresh order of punishment with regard to charges 1 and 2 only which should be proportionate to the established charge of procedural lapses. This Court would not like to interfere with power of the disciplinary authority in awarding suitable punishment but such punishment in the facts should not be one of dismissal or any other punishment so as to affect petitioners right for post retiral benefits after superannuation. This writ application is allowed only to the aforesaid extent and the impugned orders dated 12.10.1992 (Annexure-8) and 9.7.1993 (Annexure 10) are set aside only insofar as the order of dismissal is concerned and the matter is remitted to the concerned respondents for passing fresh suitable order as observed earlier. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.