Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 905 (JHR)

Shiv Prasad Sahu v. Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank

2013-07-25

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER Herd learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.8.2000 passed by the Chairman, Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Disciplinary Authority, Annexure 6, by which the consolidated punishment of reduction of four stages in the incremental scale of pay has been imposed upon him in respect of a departmental proceeding initiated by charge sheet dated 6.6.1994. The appellate authority, by its order dated 23.4.2001, Annexure 7, has confirmed the said order and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3. In February 1983 to October 1987, while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the Chainpur Branch under the respondent bank, he was served with a charge sheet dated 6th June, 1994, Annexure1, for the following charges:(i) he misappropriated Rs.85,500/being the Government subsidy procured by the bank for being credited to 164 loan accounts financed under the Integrated Rural Development Programme (ii) he misutilized Bank's money under his control by showing fake loans disbursement and acted mala fide. (iii) he misappropriated Rs.1543.20 Paise in course of disbursement of loans to five loanees under the Integrated Rural Development Programme. The accompanying statements in support of the Article of charges were also annexed to the charge sheet which, inter aila, alleged that under the bank scheme of financing from the IRDP project categorical instructions for loan disbursement were issued. The petitioner prepared a fake report showing supply of additional assets to the then existing loanees and then debited their loan accounts on occasions stated in enclosure attached and kept the money so debited with himself. Within another few days, the petitioner recovered back in those loan accounts such amounts which added with subsidy make the above noted debits zero. The summation of recovery shown and the subsidy credited in each loan accounts was equal to the debit made through his bogus transaction in 164 loan accounts. He misappropriated Rs.85,500/being the subsidy equivalent credited to many loan accounts on the enumerated occasions. Thereby he committed serious misconduct in terms of Regulations 17 and 19 of the Staff Service Regulation of the Bank, 1981 and failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity. The specific instances of loans were also enumerated therein. These loans disbursement were to be made in no manner other than to supply of productive assets to such loanees, which he violated in a mala fide manner. The specific instances of loans were also enumerated therein. These loans disbursement were to be made in no manner other than to supply of productive assets to such loanees, which he violated in a mala fide manner. Further in respect of the third charge, while making debit in the loan accounts out of the transactions enumerated in the statement of allegations as aforesaid, he dishonestly retained with him Rs.1543.20 Paise, which was also shown in Enclosure No.2 attached therewith. Therefore, the petitioner was proceeded against for the alleged charges. Details of such accounts and disbursement of loans were also part of the enclosure forming the charge sheet. The petitioner, thereafter, faced the inquiry proceeding in which initially one Ravindra Nath was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, one Shri Bhattacharya was appointed as Inquiry Officer in place of the earlier Inquiry Officer. The petitioner made allegations that the charges have been levelled without proper verification of the accounts and the material exhibits has not been adduced to prove the charges.He further stated that the charges nos.2 and 3 were concocted as whatever loan was granted to the persons have been duly received by them and purchase receipts were signed by the Mukhia and Block Development Officer including the petitioner. However, the said documents were not relied upon in an arbitrary manner. He further submitted that every bill of purchase in respect of first and second article of charges was having genuine signature of every purchase committee members including B.D.O being a Block Agriculture Officer of loanees themselves and the allegations made against him are, therefore, baseless. The loans were disbursed in a proper manner before the Purchase Committee and no public complaint was ever made to any of the related loanees, which was specified in the mode of disbursal. However, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of the alleged charges and inquiry report was submitted on 12.3.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to show cause which he did, vide Annexure 5 dated 20.4.1998. 4. In detailed reply once again the petitioner explained his innocence and discussed individual charges in detail also pointing out certain facts, which were ignored by the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry proceeding. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to show cause which he did, vide Annexure 5 dated 20.4.1998. 4. In detailed reply once again the petitioner explained his innocence and discussed individual charges in detail also pointing out certain facts, which were ignored by the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry proceeding. However, by the impugned order consolidated punishment of reduction of four stages incremental scale of pay has been imposed by the disciplinary authority vide the impugned order dated 24.8.2000, Annexure 6, which is not proper. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order of punishment has been rendered without proper application of mind and without taking into account the elaborate statements of defence submitted by him in reply to the second show cause notice. The Appellate Authority has also confirmed the original order of punishment without application of mind. The petitioner is not guilty of the aforesaid charges in any case, which could not be proved against him in the circumstances explained hereinabove. 5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that the departmental proceeding was conducted according to the Service Regulation and full fledged inquiry was conducted after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer found the charges established against him and submitted inquiry report on 12.3.1998 on each charges proved. The allegations were of serious nature which related to misappropriation of subsidy of loans, which were closed within a short period of time. The false loans were disbursed with intention of misappropriation of Government subsidy. For framing this charge, bills, receipt and Purchase Committee Reports were not required. It is further submitted that perusal of Annexure1 shows that 50% of the loan disbursed was debited in the accounts within 23 days and 50% subsidy was credited within 23 months. The charge sheet issued against him was basically for misappropriation of subsidy of fund and reference to the Purchase Committee Report by the petitioner has nothing to do with it. It is further submitted that for proving the aforesaid charges the documentary evidences were enough, which were in the form of records of the bank and deposition of independent witnesses, as stated by the petitioner, was not at all necessary. It is further submitted that for proving the aforesaid charges the documentary evidences were enough, which were in the form of records of the bank and deposition of independent witnesses, as stated by the petitioner, was not at all necessary. However, certain persons have been deposed as management witnesses, whereunder the allegations were established that the petitioner had indulged in misappropriation of the aforesaid amounts. In such circumstances, proceeding has been held to due compliance of the natural justice and the charges in relation to the petitioner were grave and serious in nature. The petitioner has been imposed only with a lesser punishment of reduction of four stages incremental scale of pay. It is submitted that the petitioner being an officer of the Bank was expected to act with utmost faith and integrity in discharging of his duty. In such matters, therefore, the punishment awarded is duly proportionate to the misconduct and interference by this Court is not required. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on records, as enumerated hereinabove. Indeed the petitioner had been proceeded against for three charges for a period between February, 1993 to October, 1987 when he was the Branch Manager of Chainpur Branch. The charges, inter alia, related to misappropriation of Rs.85,500/being the Government subsidy which was procured by the Bank for being credited to 164 loan accounts against the Integrated Rural Development Programme. He misutilized the Bank's money transaction by showing fake loan transactions by acting mala fide. The third charge was also related to misappropriation of Rs.1543.20 paise as disbursing loan to five loanees under the Integrated Rural Development Programme. The charge sheet itself contains the statement of allegations as also the extracts of the loan accounts of various loanees showing the specific dates of debit of the subsidy and recovery of the amount. The allegations were serious in nature. However, the petitioner was proceeded against and given enough opportunity in course of the departmental proceeding where he participated. The Inquiry Officer in a detailed finding, as contained in Annexure4 in respect of each of the charges, found the allegations against the petitioner to be proved and submitted his charge sheet on 12.3.1998. The allegations were serious in nature. However, the petitioner was proceeded against and given enough opportunity in course of the departmental proceeding where he participated. The Inquiry Officer in a detailed finding, as contained in Annexure4 in respect of each of the charges, found the allegations against the petitioner to be proved and submitted his charge sheet on 12.3.1998. After discussion of the first article of charge, the Inquiry Officer came to a finding that barring six cases, the loanees were shown as debited for Rs.1,000/as disbursement of second phase of loan and soon after that within couple of days Rs.500/was shown repaid and after some gap Rs.500/was shown credited by way of subsidy. In each of these cases the effect of the debit of loans of Rs.1000/and Rs.2000/as the case was to bring it by showing 50% of loan debited as cash recovery and another 50% as subsidy and thus he kept the amount equivalent to the subsidy. In such circumstances, the Inquiry Officer arrived at a conclusion by duly examining the representative witnesses of either side, that the charges can be held to be proved as it was neither possible nor practicable to examine large number of witnesses for establishing the said allegation. He also dealt with the allegation relating to nonproduction of Purchase Committee Report and entire bills/receipts. According to him, the charge was about fake loan disbursement through fake records and not about missing documents. In such circumstances, after categorically discussing the evidences of the parties including the petitioner, he found the allegations of misappropriation of subsidy by disbursal of fake loan as established against the petitioner. In respect of article 2 of the charge also the Inquiry Officer dealt with the case of the parties as also the evidence of the witnesses adduced and came to a conclusion that allegations contained in Paras (c), (h) and (i) were proved. Similarly in respect of article 3 of the charge also the Inquiry Officer found that the allegations of misappropriation in respect of three incidents for an amount of Rs.943/stood proved. Therefore, each of the three charges were found to be proved against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter was served with the inquiry report and asked to submit a reply to the same in the nature of second show cause. 7. Therefore, each of the three charges were found to be proved against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter was served with the inquiry report and asked to submit a reply to the same in the nature of second show cause. 7. The petitioner, accordingly, furnished a detailed reply in respect of the findings of the departmental inquiry against him. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter considered the charges levelled against him and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as also his reply/representation and came to a definite conclusion that the charges against him were proved. The allegations of bias against the Investigating Officer did not contain any truth and unsubstantiated. He also took into account his contention that the purchase committee report was not produced by observing that there was no existence of the said purchase committee in the branch and the same was not cogent for the purpose of proving the charges, which were established from the documents, which are kept on records of the bank itself i.e. the loan accounts of the affected loanees. In such matter, therefore, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of reduction of four stages of incremental scale of pay in respect of each of these charges. The punishment imposed, cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct as the petitioner was a Branch Manager of the bank where financial transactions involving public money takes place and utmost faith is required. The relationship between employer and employee should be based on full confidence. The acts of the petitioner also resulted in loss of public money. The appellate authority considered the findings and the facts related to the disciplinary authority, whereby the punishment of reduction of four stages of incremental pay scale was imposed upon him, also came to a conclusion that it did not require any interference and there is no scope for any leniency in the matter. In such circumstances, the original order was also confirmed by the appellate authority i.e. the Board of Director, whose decision was communicated under the signature of Chairman of the Bank. 8. In the totality of facts and circumstance and the reasons referred to hereinabove, therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out any infirmity in the conduct of the departmental proceeding or in relation to the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon him for the established misconduct. 9. 8. In the totality of facts and circumstance and the reasons referred to hereinabove, therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out any infirmity in the conduct of the departmental proceeding or in relation to the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon him for the established misconduct. 9. The impugned orders, therefore, do not suffer from any errors of law and no interference is required. 10. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.