Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 754 (GAU)

KRISHNA KANTA DAIMARY v. UNION OF INDIA

2018-05-08

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. T. Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State Bank of India (SBI) and their officers are represented by Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned senior counsel. 2. The petitioner served as a Branch Manager in the Rowta Chariali Branch of the SBI and in pursuant to the Disciplinary Proceeding (D.P.) drawn up against him, under the charge memo dated 30.3.2004 (Annexure-I), the Manager has been dismissed from service on 13.9.2005 (Annexure-V). All the 8 charges were found to have been proved in the departmental enquiry and accepting the finding, the Disciplinary Authority concluded that the Branch Manager failed to discharge his duty with due integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and thereby, committed serious lapses jeopardizing the interest of the Bank, in violation of Rule 50 (4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the SBI Officers Rules). On that basis, the penalty of dismissal under Rule 67 (j) was ordered against the delinquent Manager. 3. The petitioner preferred an Appeal against the punishment but the same was rejected by the Appellate authority on 6.12.2005 (Annexure-VII). The Reviewing Authority in turn, found no merit in the Review Petition and declined to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary and the Appellate authority. 4.1. Assailing the disciplinary action, the petitioner contends that as the Branch Manager, it is not his responsibility to assess the borrowers credentials or to personally undertake the background check of the borrowers. Hence the sanctioning of the loans without due verification, is projected to be a minor lapse and on this basis, the imposition of major penalty of dismissal, is questioned by the petitioners lawyer. 4.2. For the delinquent Manager, Mr. T. Roy, the learned counsel submits that the SBI failed to take step to recover the disbursed loans and highlighting this, the counsel tries to downplay the gravity of misconduct committed by the Branch Manager. The counsel submits that with diligent efforts, recovery from the borrowers could have been made or the Branch Manager could have been given the minor penalty, under Rule 67 (d) of the SBI Officers Rules, by ordering recovery of the pecuniary loss, caused to the Bank. 4.3. According to the petitioner, the allegations were found to have been proved without adequate supporting evidence and on that basis, the penalization of the delinquent is questioned by the counsel. 5.1. 4.3. According to the petitioner, the allegations were found to have been proved without adequate supporting evidence and on that basis, the penalization of the delinquent is questioned by the counsel. 5.1. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned senior counsel submits that it is not a case of minor infringement but is a serious case of wrongful disbursal of 169 KCC loans, without proper assessment of the borrowers credentials and in fact, it is an extreme case of multiple loans being sanctioned through dishonest and fraudulent exercise. 5.2. The SBI counsel submits that even if some of the disbursed loans are recovered, the degree of misconduct will not get diminished and therefore Mr. Sharma argues that the major penalty of dismissal was justified, for the Branch Manager. 5.3. Since no loan can be sanctioned without scrutiny and authorization of the Branch Manager, it is apparent that the delinquent did not verify whether necessary pre-loan enquiries have been made or all required information for the borrowers are recorded, before authorizing the loans. The counsel submits that the Branch Manager had failed to work with due diligence and such conduct cannot be tolerated in a Bank, where higher degree of honesty and devotion of the staff is essential. 6. Before proceeding any further, it would be necessary to note that the misconduct relates to the period, when the petitioner was posted as the Branch Manager of Rowta Chariali Branch of the SBI. The allegations being relevant, are extracted here-in-below for ready reference : "(i) Sanctioning and disbursing 169 KCC loans at a flat rate of Rs.20,000/- each without proper assessment and exceeding the budget without proper validation from his controller. In many cases he had obtained unsigned quotations for supply of seeds and fertilizers from a firm which had discontinued dealing in such items and thereby the Bank has been put to a substantial loss. (ii) In many cases, the loan applications, documents and even withdrawal slips have been written by Shri Sachindra Nath Das, an Insurance agent and the loan amounts were disbursed to Shri Das in cash in contravention of the Banks rules. (iii) The proceeds of 22 such KCC loans aggregating Rs.4,40,000/- were credited to the Savings Bank account No.24/12325 of Shri Chapala Kanta Biswas (an Award Staff member of Kharupetia branch) maintained at Rowta Chariali Branch. (iii) The proceeds of 22 such KCC loans aggregating Rs.4,40,000/- were credited to the Savings Bank account No.24/12325 of Shri Chapala Kanta Biswas (an Award Staff member of Kharupetia branch) maintained at Rowta Chariali Branch. (iv) Had not obtained the photographs in respect of 83 KCC loan borrowers. (v) Had sanctioned two Demand Loans for Rs.25,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively against fictitious STDRs. To close the above two Demand loans, a cheque No.583802 was drawn on 05.12.2002 for Rs.56,223/- on a fictitious Cash Credit account No.1/147 of M/s. Dutta Enterprise, a non existing firm. (vi) The fictitious Cash Credit account No.1/147 was opened by him in the name of M/s. Dutta Enterprise, a non existing firm, with a limit of Rs.80,000/-, which he finally closed himself by depositing an amount of Rs.20,912/- on 10.09.2003 subsequent to his release from the branch. (vii) Had opened a fictitious Savings Bank account No.24/12258 in the name of Smt Pramila Daimari and the account was operated by him. (viii) Did not conduct pre-sanction survey, post disbursement follow-up/inspection in respect of all the 169 KCC loans". 7. When the charge memo dated 30.3.2004 (Annexure-I) was served on the delinquent along with the list of documents and the list of witnesses, a three line response was made by the Branch Manager on 15.4.2004 (Annexure-II), where he denied the allegations and requested for exoneration. The response was found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly, one K.R. Paul was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. 8. The delinquent participated in the enquiry together with his defence assistant and the proceedings were conducted on eight dates, starting from 22.5.2004 to 12.8.2004. The evidence produced against each charge, were carefully weighed by the Inquiry Officer and he found that 169 KCC loans were sanctioned by unlawfully securing unsigned quotation from the firm M/s. Udangshree Enterprises, which stopped dealing with seeds and fertilizers. Moreover, the evidence of the paying cashier disclosed that several loans were disbursed through the individual Sachindra Nath Das. The sanctioning of loans in the name of fictitious borrowers, cheque being credited in the name of fictitious firm (M/s. Dutta Enterprises), were also found established. The self drawing of loan by the delinquent Manager for non-existent borrower, his failure to conduct pre-sanction surveys and post-sanction follow up, were held to be proved against the delinquent. The sanctioning of loans in the name of fictitious borrowers, cheque being credited in the name of fictitious firm (M/s. Dutta Enterprises), were also found established. The self drawing of loan by the delinquent Manager for non-existent borrower, his failure to conduct pre-sanction surveys and post-sanction follow up, were held to be proved against the delinquent. The relevant Bank Registers relating to inspection and sanction of loans as well as the evidence of the Bank Staff were considered and assessed and on this basis, it was concluded that all the 8 allegations were proved. Agreeing with the guilty finding and bearing in mind the gravity of the lapses, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for dismissal of the delinquent, under Rule 67 (j) of the SBI Officers Rules, on 13.9.2005 (Annexure-V). 9. When the aggrieved delinquent approached the higher authority, the Appellate authority noted that the delinquent participated in the enquiry but failed to produce any defence evidence, for any of the 8 allegations. The imposition of major penalty for the serious lapses relatable to Rule 50 (4), was found to be justified and accordingly, the Appeal was rejected on 6.12.2005 (Annexure-VII), by the Appellate authority. 10. The three member Reviewing Committee in their turn, examined the basis for disciplinary action and also the reasoning for the Appellate authority order. The Committee found that the lapses are not just procedural irregularities but are of serious nature, warranting the major penalty. The findings in the departmental enquiry were concluded to be based on relevant material. The gravity of the allegations and the failure of the delinquent to defend the charge was also noted. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed on 2.12.2006 (Annexure-IX). 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that guilty finding was recorded without any material. But I cannot agree with this submission since I find that there was adequate relevant material to justify the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer and it is not a case of perverse conclusion. 12. The charge against the Branch Manager is not one of minor irregularity but indicates his utter failure to discharge his duty with integrity, honesty and devotion. In fact, the major lapses have seriously undermined the interest of the Bank. 12. The charge against the Branch Manager is not one of minor irregularity but indicates his utter failure to discharge his duty with integrity, honesty and devotion. In fact, the major lapses have seriously undermined the interest of the Bank. In such circumstances, the disciplinary authority has rightly declared that the lapses relate to Rule 50 (4), which justifies the major penalty of dismissal, under Rule 67 (j) of the SBI Officers Rules. 13. In my assessment, the petitioner has filed to make out any case for interference with the dismissal order and accordingly, the case is found devoid of merit and is dismissed. But since the petitioners counsel, Mr. T. Roy submits that certain dues owed to the delinquent have remained unpaid, such amount if payable, must be released by the Bank, notwithstanding this dismissal order. It is ordered accordingly. 14. With the above order, the case stands concluded. No cost.