Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 484 (JHR)

Sheo Prasad Sahu v. Ranchi Kshetriya Gramim Bank

2013-04-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 25th August, 2000 (Annexure7), imposing a punishment of reduction by four stages in the incremental scale of pay has been inflicted upon the petitioner, which is under challenge in the present writ application. The appellate order dated 23rd April, 2001 (Annexure8) confirming the order of punishment is also under challenge by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was Branch Manager at Kakaria Branch of the Respondents Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank at the relevant point of time in respect of which he has been proceeded in a departmental inquiry for misconduct vide charge-sheet dated 29th December, 1995. Three charges were levelled against the petitioner:- (i) that the petitioner while functioning as the Manager in the said Branch during the period from October, 1987 to August, 1992, misappropriated an amount of Rs.15000.00 on 25th March, 1992 by showing three fake loan disbursements in the records of the Bank; (ii) that during the said period, the petitioner misappropriated an aggregate amount of Rs.70,000.00 on five different occasions by showing fake loan disbursements in 14 loan accounts; (iii) that again during the same period he has been alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.4731.10 Paise on 19th August, 1992 by showing fake loan disbursements in two loan accounts. 4. The statement of allegations in support of the charges giving description of the persons in whose favour the loans were said to be disbursed by such fake loan disbursement processes have been indicated in respect of the three charges. The statement of allegation also alleges that the said loans were to be given to identified persons out of the amounts sanctioned under the Integrated Rural Development Programme of the Government and the petitioner being the Branch Manager was required to credit the loan accounts released by the Government of India and also to select loanees eligible for the said relief within the stipulated framework of the Scheme relating to Agriculture Debt Relief Scheme, 1990. In respect of the charges it is alleged that his acts of disbursement of fake loans in 14 accounts was unbecoming of a Bank Officer and is charged for misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 19 of the Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staffs Service Regulations, 1981. In respect of the charges it is alleged that his acts of disbursement of fake loans in 14 accounts was unbecoming of a Bank Officer and is charged for misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 19 of the Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staffs Service Regulations, 1981. In respect of third charge also the description of the person in whose favour the said fake loans were disbursed are also indicated showing the retention of a balance amount of Rs.4731.10 Paise after liquidation of two earlier fake loan accounts on 9th August, 1992 which is again misconduct under the Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staffs Service Regulations, 1981. The inquiry report was submitted after conclusion of the inquiry on 24th December, 1998 (Annexure3). In respect of each of the three charges, the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be established and proved against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has, however, challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer stating that not all instances of fake loan disbursement were found to be established during the course of inquiry, though it is not disputed by him that in respect of the few such instances at least charges have been established during the course of inquiry. It further appears from a perusal of the inquiry report that the Enquiry Officer has found instances of dereliction of duty in following the procedure while making disbursement of such loans as are the obligation of Branch Manager. For example, the loans have been disbursed by issuance of a cheque to the supplier though supply of cows were actually not made to the right person. It has also been found that one of the most important aspects of the process of disbursal is that the purchase of animals should be signed by the Veterinary Doctor concerned of the Government which is lacking. The livestocks were not ensured and no tag was affixed to the animals. The Purchase Committee Report in question also did not bear the seller's signature. The Enquiry Officer took into account the deposition of the management witness as also the defence witnesses and the exhibits produced by either parties as also written statements by the Presenting Officer and the representative of the delinquent petitioner while preparing the inquiry report. 6. The Purchase Committee Report in question also did not bear the seller's signature. The Enquiry Officer took into account the deposition of the management witness as also the defence witnesses and the exhibits produced by either parties as also written statements by the Presenting Officer and the representative of the delinquent petitioner while preparing the inquiry report. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the acts of misappropriation of amount which is a serious allegation have not been shown to be established and in some such cases where allegations of fake disbursement have been alleged, the beneficiaries have deposed stating that some thumb impressions were taken on the documents on assurance of payment of certain money. In such circumstances, according to the petitioner he alone is not responsible for such disbursal of loans to the beneficiaries. The Purchase Committee which comprises D.R.D.A. representative/Block Development Officer, Pramukh/Mukhiya also apart from the Branch Manager, who are also responsible for the same. Therefore, in circumstances when the seriousness of the allegations contained in three charges were not conclusively established in each such instance, the finding of the Enquiry Officer suffers from errors of fact and the finding of the inquiry report that the charges stood proved is not proper in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted his reply after furnishing the second show cause vide Annexure5, wherein he has reiterated the aforesaid contention and stated that these instances of fake disbursement of loan in respect of several such persons alleged in the charge-sheet do not stand establish. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed as being wholly excessive as he has been reduced to the basic scale by a punishment of withholding of four increments though no ground of misappropriation of bank money has been found to be established. It is also his contention that the appellate order confirming the order of the disciplinary authority has been passed by the Chairman, though the appellate authority is the Board of Directors of the Bank and the same also appear from the Annexure8, appellate order dated 23rd April, 2001 as it is issued under the signature of the Chairman of Respondents Bank himself. In such circumstances, according to the petitioner, the charges against the petitioner, on the basis of materials adduced during the inquiry, were not established into to and therefore such a major punishment should not have been imposed upon him. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents Bank, on the other hand, has contested the stand of the petitioner. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Mrs. M.M. Pal appearing on behalf of the Respondents Bank that the charges were of serious nature in the manner of fake disbursal of loans to the beneficiaries of such loans, though the loans were actually not disbursed in favour of such persons. It is stated that the petitioner was enjoying the capacity of Branch Manager of the Respondents Bank over whom there are serious allegations, who ought to have followed the entire procedure before disbursal of the loans, but he had failed to follow the same which has been found during the course of inquiry proceeding and therefore the inquiry report as well as impugned order does not suffer from any error of law or on facts. She further submits that at best the case of the petitioner as it appears is that all the allegations contained in charges have not been found to be established in the inquiry proceeding. This Court, however, should not interfere under exercise of judicial review in such a situation as sufficiency of evidence is not to be weighed in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter arising out of disciplinary proceeding. However, she submits that the present case is not a case of no evidence and when the charges have been found to be established the punishment imposed is wholly proportionate to the misconduct against the petitioner. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. However, she submits that the present case is not a case of no evidence and when the charges have been found to be established the punishment imposed is wholly proportionate to the misconduct against the petitioner. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. From the facts, which have been borne out from the record and have been narrated hereinabove, the case of the petitioner is that in respect of three serious charges alleging misappropriation of public money in the matter of disbursal of loans for purchase of cattle to the beneficiaries under a Government Scheme; not all instances of such charges have been found to be established by the Enquiry Officer and therefore finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charges stood established and proved is bad in law. However, in a case of departmental proceeding, this Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review is not required to weigh evidence produced in a departmental proceeding. From perusal of the inquiry report, it appears that this is not a case of no evidence during the proceeding. Moreover, the instances of such persons like one Temba Oraon in respect of whom also fake disbursal of such loans were found to be established after his examination as a management witness shows that the Enquiry Officer has found instances of fake disbursal of loans. Moreover, the petitioner has been found to have failed to follow the procedure before ensuring disbursal of loans of public money under a particular scheme whereunder certain necessity formalities were required to be complied with such as for every purchase of cattle/animal the signature of veterinary doctor was mandatory requirement. Similarly, the livestocks which were purchased were to be compulsorily insured in order to secure the interest of the Bank on any eventuality of death or mishappening of animal concerned and no tag were also found to be affixed to the said animal. The Purchase Committee Report also did not show the seller's signature. Instances have been found by the Enquiry Officer in which though it has been alleged that the amount of loan has been repudiated in installment, but it has been found that the same were disbursed in one installment by the said beneficiaries which may be in order to ensure saving of the skin after being detected of such acts of misconduct. It therefore appears from perusal of the inquiry report that the charges of fake disbursal of loans in some instances have been found to be established during the course of inquiry upon evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the present case is not a case of no evidence. Sufficiency of evidence as is well settled is not to be a weighed while exercising power of judicial review in such matter where the decision making process is to be adjudged as to whether they conform to the procedure laid down under the law or not or are vitiated otherwise. The impugned order has been passed based upon the findings of the inquiry report after giving opportunity to the petitioner and since the petitioner was enjoying the post of Branch Manager of the Bank itself the punishment is not excessive. 9. The contention of the petitioner that the appeal has been decided by the Chairman of the Bank himself in stead of Board of Directors have been specifically refuted by the Respondents Bank in their statements made at para 23 of the counter affidavit. In fact, it has been stated that in such cases, the Chairman remains away from the proceedings of the Board. The petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the aforesaid contention. Perusal of the appellate order also indicates that the same has been arrived at by the Board of Directors which has only been communicated by the Chairman of the Bank concerned. In the totality of facts and circumstances and the reasons recorded hereinabove, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. Application dismissed.