Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 53 (JHR)

Nagendra Sah v. Bihar State Cooperative Bank Ltd.

2007-01-24

DILIP KUMAR SINHA, M.Y.EQBAL

body2007
JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2006 passed in CWJC No. 335/1998R whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his dismissal from service, has been dismissed. 3. It appears that in Lohardaga branch of State Cooperative Land Development Bank a huge amount by way of loan given to different persons, was lying due and the said loan amount could not be realized. On 25.10.1996 the appellant was posted as Branch Manager in Lohardaga Branch of the said Bank. Although there was no condition put in the order of posting of the appellant but the respondent-Banks case is that the appellant was posted there for the purpose of taking all endeavours for realization of the loan amount. Respondents further case was that in between 1995 to 1998 the appellant was posted as Branch Manager in Lohardaga Branch and during that period also the loan amount was disbursed to different persons. In 1997 a notice to show cause was issued directing the appellant to show cause as to why he has not recovered and realized the loan amount. A detailed show cause was filed by the appellant. However, a charge sheet was issued for a departmental proceeding on the charges of irregularities and unsatisfactory performance of the appellant in the matter of realization of loan amount from the lonees. In the departmental proceeding the appellant was held guilty and consequently an order of his dismissal from service was passed on 4.12.97. 4. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant-writ petitioner was found guilty and several opportunities of hearing was given to him in the departmental proceeding, did not interfere with the impugned order of dismissal from service and dismissed the writ petition. 5. On 12.09.2006 this appeal was heard at the admission stage and this Bench taking the view that the punishment appears to be disproportionate to the charges levelled against the appellant, issued notices to the respondents. 6. Today we have heard the counsel for the parties. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the appellant. 6. Today we have heard the counsel for the parties. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the appellant. For deciding this question it would be worth to refer to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Bank. In para 13 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the appellant had not taken any appropriate step for realization of the loan dues which was to be done through the process of the court. The total loan realized was 5.4% which was most unsatisfactory and the same was not sufficient for the purpose of maintaining the required standard and for eligibility of the Branch for getting fund for disbursement of loan. In para 14 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the appellant was posted for the purpose of improving the performance of the Branch particularly for improving the percentage of loan realization. In para 15 it is stated that the appellant failed in achieving the required target. In para 17 it is stated that out of total demand dues of Rs. 95.23 lacs, only 92.54 lacs was realized which, in percentage, comes to 2.7%. However, Mr. M.K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank submits that there is some typographical mistake in the figure. According to him the figure 82.54 lacs should be 02.54 lacs. It is stated that because of this unsatisfactory performance departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant. 7. From the counter affidavit it is clear that there is no charge against the appellant for misappropriation of any loan amount or any irregularity in disbursing the loan amount or any connivance with the lonees at any time in realization of the banks loan. Mere unsatisfactory performance in realization of the bank loan will not result in dismissal of the appellant from service. The appellant could have been reverted back to the lower post or ought to have been posted in any post other than the Branch Manager, but his dismissal from service is a very harsh punishment. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered this aspect of the matter. What should be the lesser punishment, we are not supposed to suggest. It is for the disciplinary authority to re-consider the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered this aspect of the matter. What should be the lesser punishment, we are not supposed to suggest. It is for the disciplinary authority to re-consider the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. For the aforesaid reason this appeal is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge as also the order of dismissal of the appellant from service passed by the disciplinary authority are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for considering the matter afresh and passing appropriate order in accordance with law.