Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 905 (JHR)

Abdul Salam Khan v. State of Bihar

2009-07-01

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2009
JUDGMENT In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Memo No.13193 dated 27.10.99 passed by the Administrator, Land Development Bank, Patna dismissing the petitioner from his service. 2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under:- The petitioner was appointed as Supervisor/Field Officer in the Land Development Bank. In the course of his employment he was transferred and posted at different places. From 14.10.85 to 2.9.87 he was posted at Lohardagga and during the said period he disbursed loan to 20 loanees amounting to Rs.2,03,000/-. The respondents again issued an order No.12939 posting the petitioner at Lohardagga Branch on 29.1.97 for the purpose of realization of the amount of Rs.2,03,000/-disbursed during the earlier tenure of posting at Lohardagga by the petitioner. Between the period 1.3.97 to 31.3.97 i.e. within a month the petitioner realized Rs.1,00,176/-against the total disbursed loan amount of Rs.2,03,000/-. The petitioner was served with a notice vide memo No.2468 dated 23.5.97 and he was asked to filed his show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The main allegation was of dereliction of duty and that the petitioner had realized only 2.2% of target amount of Rs.53,85000/-. The petitioner filed his show cause on 4.6.97 and accordingly a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 25.6.97 to which the petitioner filed his written statement and pursuant to the enquiry a report was submitted on 12.1.99 by the Enquiry Officer in favour of the petitioner. However, vide letter No.8641 the Deputy Secretary of the Land Development Bank, Patna asked the petitioner to file second show cause and a memo No.13193 dated 27.10.99 was served to the petitioner informing that he has been dismissed from service. 3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was given a major punishment for a minor charge even though the petitioner had realized 43% of the minimum target of 40% as fixed by the bank, as per its own policy. It has further been submitted that the order of dismissal was without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and even the enquiry report was not considered which was in favour of the petitioner clearly holding that no charge against the petitioner was established. 4. It has further been submitted that the order of dismissal was without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and even the enquiry report was not considered which was in favour of the petitioner clearly holding that no charge against the petitioner was established. 4. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have submitted that the petitioner was responsible for collection of loan amount given by the bank and it was not correct to say that the petitioner was only responsible for loan disbursement. It has further been contended that the Public Demand Recovery Act, gives ample power to recover the loan amount and take appropriate measures for collection to which the petitioner failed to do and the administrative action was taken only on the fact that the loan collection was very poor as per his past record. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and the pleadings. The charge against the petitioner was only with regard to dereliction of duty with regard to realizing the loan amount and obstruction with regard to loan disbursement for the year 1996-97 which is minor in nature and the major punishment of dismissal is certainly disproportionate to the gravity of charge and not commensurate with the alleged misconduct. I also find that there was no earlier lapse on the part of the petitioner and his carrier record was unblemished and he had realized more than 43% of the minimum amount disbursed by way of loan. However, seeing the area in question which is infested with naxalited and the people who had taken the loan, the amount realized was certainly more than the fixed realization of 40% and thus even the allegation of dereliction of duty and misconduct does not stand to reason more so, when the enquiry report given by the Enquiry Officer was in favour of the petitioner in this regard. 6. The fact remains that in the second posting the petitioner joined at Lohardagga only on 1st March, 1997 and was served with the notice on 23.5.1997 and thus he got only one month time to realize the amount of loan. It is also a fact that Lohardagga is a terrorist infested area and it was not possible for the petitioner to exercise his duty alone and even his predecessors had realized only Rs.40,000/-whereas by way of sincere endeavor the petitioner could realize Rs.1,17,000/-. It is also a fact that Lohardagga is a terrorist infested area and it was not possible for the petitioner to exercise his duty alone and even his predecessors had realized only Rs.40,000/-whereas by way of sincere endeavor the petitioner could realize Rs.1,17,000/-. It further appears that the target of realization of Rs.53,85,000/-was fixed to be realized from 1.4.96 to 31.3.97 in Lohardagga Branch of the bank and the petitioner was transferred only on 29.1.97 from Jamshedpur and lastly relieved on 18.2.97 but could join only on 1.3.97 and thus he got only one month time to meet the target of one year. It also appears that the explanation and the report given by the Enquiry Officer absolving the petitioner from all the charges was a well considered report which was not even considered in its true perspective nor was it answered in the impugned order dated 27.10.99. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that punishment prima facie appears to be disproportionate and the major punishment of dismissal requires reconsideration, the impugned order dated 27.10.99 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration in view of the observation made hereinabove.