Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 67 (CAL)

Chandan Kumar v. Punjab National Bank

2016-01-19

SANJIB BANERJEE

body2016
JUDGMENT : The short and crisp submission on the part of the petitioner, who has been removed from service pursuant to a departmental action, is that in course of the inquiry, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to present his case and the bank’s rules were completely disregarded. The charges brought against the petitioner pertain to reckless lending as documents were not obtained by him to ascertain the identity or address of the borrowers, their consent was not obtained in several cases, no field visits were undertaken and no entries were made in the document registers when granting the Kishan Credit Cards. The other charges pertain to the sanction of an education loan to a person without any proof of address and the transactions between the petitioner and the relevant loan account. There are also charges of fake accounts, fraudulent transactions and nepotism in the matter of opening of accounts of some relatives. In course of the inquiry, copies of the documents relied upon by the management were made over to the petitioner. The petitioner was also asked whether the petitioner desired to submit any document in defence or call any witness. It is necessary to see two questions put by the inquiry officer to the petitioner and the petitioner’s answers thereto : “EO to CO : Have you received the Management Exhibits ME1 to ME 45. “CO to EO: Yes I have received all the documents as mentioned as ME1 to ME 45. “EO to PO : Do you want to submit any other documents or to produce any witness for supporting (sic, defending) the charges? “PO to EO : I am not submitting any other documents right now, however, I may submit some documents in later stage. Further, I do not want to produce any witness.” The inquiry officer found against the petitioner in respect of several heads of charge. A few of the charges were found to have been partially proved and two incidental charges related to the first and second charges were found not to have been proved. There is no dispute that the disciplinary authority afforded the petitioner his right of representation against the inquiry officer’s findings. The inquiry report was dated January 29, 2013 and it was forwarded to the petitioner under cover of a letter of February 19, 2013. There is no dispute that the disciplinary authority afforded the petitioner his right of representation against the inquiry officer’s findings. The inquiry report was dated January 29, 2013 and it was forwarded to the petitioner under cover of a letter of February 19, 2013. The petitioner addressed a letter dated March 12, 2013 indicating his response to the findings of the inquiry officer. In such three-page response, the petitioner did not complain of any procedural irregularity on the part of the inquiry officer or of the inquiry officer being “tutored” or the inquiry officer failing to give the petitioner adequate opportunity to defend himself. The representation of March 12, 2013 was on merits and the disciplinary authority considered it accordingly in reassessing the findings of the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority applied his independent mind to the charges levelled against the petitioner and indicated in the order of punishment his reasons for accepting the same. In any event, some of the charges were such that they did not require any proof. The disciplinary authority imposed the major penalty of removal from service with effect from the date of the punishment order of June 29, 2013. The petitioner preferred an appeal on July 30, 2013 and it was here that the petitioner, for the first time, alleged that the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry without following the bank’s rules pertaining to inquiries. The petitioner complained that he was not allowed to avail of the services of a defence assistant. The appellate authority discussed the charges and the petitioner’s response on merits before concurring with the order of punishment. The appellate authority felt that the charges were so grave and the conduct of the petitioner was so reckless that the punishment did not warrant any interference. However, the appellate authority did not consider the allegation of procedural irregularity levelled against the inquiry officer. Against the appellate order, the petitioner applied for review under the PNB Officer – Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. In the opening line of the petition for review, the petitioner alleged that the disciplinary authority was biased against the petitioner, though he had not raised such contention either before the disciplinary authority or in course of his appeal from the order of punishment. In the opening line of the petition for review, the petitioner alleged that the disciplinary authority was biased against the petitioner, though he had not raised such contention either before the disciplinary authority or in course of his appeal from the order of punishment. Again, in the opening line of the third paragraph in the petition for review, the petitioner alleged that the inquiry officer was “tutored”, though he had not levelled such allegation in response to the inquiry findings or before the appellate authority. It was also in the third paragraph of the review that the petitioner, surprisingly, alleged that he was asked to co-operate in the inquiry “with assurance that no punitive action will be taken as the bank has suffered no loss”. However, such aspect of the matter did not find mention either in his representation against the inquiry officer’s findings or in his appeal from the order of punishment. The quality of the petitioner’s defence and the extent of the petitioner’s dishonesty are evident from the fourth paragraph of the review petition where the petitioner alleged that the inquiry officer “did not allow any witness insisted upon by the applicant”. As is evident from the report of the inquiry officer and the two questions and answers quoted above, the representation in the fourth paragraph of the review petition was false and contrary to the records. It is also inconceivable that a grievous injustice as the denial of the delinquent’s witness would be committed in course of the inquiry and the delinquent will not protest the same at the earliest before the inquiry officer or in his representation to the disciplinary authority. It was not necessary to go into any great detail to affirm the order of punishment passed against this dishonest bank officer. But a more elaborate exercise has been undertaken to demonstrate the impunity with which matters are now carried to court. The petitioner indulged in reckless transactions in derogation of established norms and the rules of the bank. He was appropriately charged and the nature of the several of the charges did not call for any proof in the absence of any exceptional circumstances being cited by the petitioner to not follow the rudimentary norms in opening an account or granting credit facilities. He was appropriately charged and the nature of the several of the charges did not call for any proof in the absence of any exceptional circumstances being cited by the petitioner to not follow the rudimentary norms in opening an account or granting credit facilities. The petitioner did not raise any objection as to the conduct of the inquiry officer at the time that the petitioner ought to have, but made frivolous allegations against the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority in course of the appeal and review. Since there does not appear to have been any procedural or other irregularity in course of the inquiry and the four tiers of authority found against the petitioner on serious charges and the order of punishment has been upheld in appeal and review, no interference is called for. On the basis of the charges levelled against the petitioner and those established, the petitioner has been rightly removed from service. WP 164(W) of 2016 is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.50,000/-. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.