Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 340 (GAU)

Ashim Kumar Dey v. State Bank of India

2018-02-22

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State Bank of India (SBI) and their officers (respondents) are represented by Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel. 2. The petitioner is a former Branch Manager and was in the Junior Management Grade Service-I of the SBI. The officer was posted as the Branch Manager at the Kanubari Branch in the Tirap District of Arunachal Pradesh on 16.5.2002 and he continued in that branch, until his transfer on 24.6.2006. 3. Noticing certain lapses in the functioning of the Branch Manager, Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated on 24.4.2008 under Rule 68 (2) (iii) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the SBI Service Rules") with the following Statement of Allegation : "It is alleged that you committed serious nature irregularities as also misappropriated funds from the accounts of the borrowers at the time of sanctioning and disbursing loan to 115 borrowers while you were posted and working as Branch Manager at our Kanubari Branch. Further it is also alleged that you adopted dishonest ways of dealing with customers and due to your act the banks image has been totally damaged. You have thus violated Rules 50 (1), 50 (3) & 50 (4) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules which is applicable to you imputation of lapses on the basis of which charges are framed are shown in Annexure-II and list of evidence/witnesses shown in Annexure-III." 4. In his written response, the delinquent highlighted the insurgent infested scenario faced by the petitioner and the constant threat of extortion and intimidation, while he was posted at the SBI’s Kanubari Branch in Tirap district. The loss making performance of the Branch set up in 1984 was highlighted and how the petitioner could improve the growth of business from Rs.1.5 crore Rs.6.5 crore and also the up-gradation of the Branch from B category to GER-A category. The allegation of misappropriation was categorically denied and the delinquent contended that he had no malafide intention in dealing with the customers of the Bank. The minor deviation of norms in disbursal of loans were meant to address the peculiar circumstances in the remote tribal area and accordingly the delinquent applied for exoneration from the charges. 5. The allegation of misappropriation was categorically denied and the delinquent contended that he had no malafide intention in dealing with the customers of the Bank. The minor deviation of norms in disbursal of loans were meant to address the peculiar circumstances in the remote tribal area and accordingly the delinquent applied for exoneration from the charges. 5. However, the explanation of the Branch Manager was found to be unsatisfactory and thus an enquiry was ordered into the charges. In the findings recorded on 8.11.2008 (Annexure-3), the Inquiry Officer concluded that Charge No.2 & 5 are not proved, Charge No.8 is partially proved but the remaining Charges were found to be established. 6. Agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the 2nd show-cause-notice was issued to the delinquent and thereafter the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal, under the impugned order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure-6). 7.1 Assailing the legality of the disciplinary action, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.K. Mahanta submits that as the petitioner was not supplied with the documents and the materials on the basis of which the allegations were levelled, he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend the charges. 7.2 The Counsel specifically points out that the Branch Manager did his best under the prevalent insurgency related circumstances in Tirap district and had conducted the affairs of the remote branch in the best interest. Furthermore the sanctioned loans were recovered fully and no loss is caused to the Bank. 7.3 The petitioner submits that the Inquiry Officer did not base his findings on any material evidence but had reached abrupt conclusion on each of the charge and this is contended to be inconsistent with the inquiry procedure, prescribed by Rule 68 (2) of the SBI Service Rules. 8.1. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent SBI submits that the Branch Manager had violated the banking norms by granting additional loans to the borrowers and this could not have been condoned by the bank authorities. 8.2 The respondents contend that all opportunities were provided to the delinquent to defend the charges and therefore it is argued that it is not an appropriate case for intervention by the Writ Court. 9. The submission made by the rival Counsel have been considered and the documents available have been perused. 8.2 The respondents contend that all opportunities were provided to the delinquent to defend the charges and therefore it is argued that it is not an appropriate case for intervention by the Writ Court. 9. The submission made by the rival Counsel have been considered and the documents available have been perused. The inquiry report of 8.11.2008 (Annexure-3) reflects that findings were recorded against the individual allegations, without any relatable discussion on the relevant evidence. Abrupt inferences were drawn without disclosing how the charges were found to be established. The manner in which the conclusions were drawn suggest that the Inquiry Officer failed to apply his mind to the relevant material. More particularly, the Inquiry Officer did not address the defence case based on the militant infested atmosphere and the threat and extortion faced by the Bank Manager, while he was posted at remote Kanubari, in the Tirap district of Arunachal Pradesh. 10. The SBI Service Rules provide for an elaborate procedure for conducting Disciplinary Proceeding and domestic inquiry but from the materials available, one can notice the clear infringement of the procedure prescribed by the sub-clause (s), under Rule 68 (2). It is further seen that the Inquiry Officer did a half-hearted and a perfunctory exercise. Thus the inquiry is found to be vitiated, in the instant case. 11. The borrowers who complained against the Branch Manager were not examined and therefore, the adverse conclusion drawn without reference to the material witnesses, cannot reasonably support the disciplinary action. The failure of the disciplinary authority to furnish the materials and the documents relied in support the allegations, definitely resulted in denial of fair opportunity to the delinquent. 12. The Court cannot also be unmindful of the fact that neither the disciplinary authority nor the Inquiry Officer, had applied their mind to the militant infested environment in the Tirap district of the border State and the compulsion for the Branch Manager, to keep the remote SBI branch functional. In fact, the augmentation of the business and the upgradation of the branch category, through the effort of the delinquent, was totally overlooked by the authorities. 13. The branch manager had pleaded that he had to take recourse to unusual measures, to attract customers and keep the branch operational and his initiative produced result and more importantly, did not result in any financial loss for the SBI. 13. The branch manager had pleaded that he had to take recourse to unusual measures, to attract customers and keep the branch operational and his initiative produced result and more importantly, did not result in any financial loss for the SBI. But this aspect was wholly ignored in deciding on the harshest possible penalty for the delinquent. Therefore the Court is constrained to hold that the disciplinary action taken against the Bank Manager, on the basis of the faulty process, discussed in the preceding paragraphs, would be unsustainable. 14. Following the above discussion, the order of dismissal dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure-6) is found to be unmerited and the same is thus quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner. However, considering the wrongful dismissal and the fact that the SBI did not receive any service from the delinquent during the intervening period, balancing the interest of both parties, the reinstatement is ordered on payment of 25% back wages. The liberty is however given to the disciplinary authority, if so advised, to conduct a legally permissible inquiry. 15. With the above order the case stands allowed in the manner indicated. No cost.