Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 679 (GAU)

Subodh Chandra Saha v. Punjab National Bank

2019-05-30

KALYAN RAI SURANA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senor Counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner being an employee of the Punjab National Bank was served with a letter dated 05.12.2012 enclosing therewith charge sheet dated 05.12.2012 containing statement of article of charges along with statement of imputation of misconduct in support of article of charges dated 05.12.2012 by the Circle Head (Disciplinary Authority) in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Regulation 6 of PNB Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1997. The Article of Charges No. 1 reads as follows: "Article-I. Shri S.C. Saha, as Branch Incumbent (Manager) of BO Rupahihat, did not adhere to the prescribed guidelines of the Bank. He did not maintain the Subsidy accounts properly. He released Subsidy amount without sanction/ disbursement of Bank loan. He also appropriated Subsidy amounts before completion of lock in period. Shri S.C. Saha, thus did not discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and has committed misconduct in terms of Regulation-3(1) read with Regulation 24 of PNB Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1997." 3. The truncated charges, bereft of lengthy particulars, were as under: Charge-1 Shri S.C. Saha, as Branch Incumbent (Manager) of BO Rupahihat, did not adhere to the prescribed guidelines of the Bank. He did not maintain the Subsidy accounts properly. He released Subsidy amount without sanction/disbursement of Bank loan. Charge-1(i) Balance of Subsidy Reserve Fund is tallied as on 14.09.2011. Rs. 79,06,262/- was lying in Subsidy Reserve Fund against 79 accounts. Subsidy of Rs. 3,40,557/- was lying in SRF Account No. 0928003182101 in the name of NABARD and has not been refunded to the concerned agency. Charge-1(ii) Amount of DRDA subsidy has been kept as FDR in following accounts instead of parking in SRF. Charge-1(iii) In many cases DRDA subsidy amounts were immediately credited in loan A/c s or Savings Fund accounts on realization of BC, instead of parking in SRF account. Such amounts were allowed to be withdrawn by the party immediately without sanction of loan and ensuring lock-in-period, against Banks/Government guidelines. Thereby Shri Saha allowed misappropriation of Govt. Subsidy. Charge-1(iv) Account No. 0928000100071004 has been opened in the name of SGSY Self Help Organization. There are several transactions of transfer credits and cash withdrawal in the account. Such amounts were allowed to be withdrawn by the party immediately without sanction of loan and ensuring lock-in-period, against Banks/Government guidelines. Thereby Shri Saha allowed misappropriation of Govt. Subsidy. Charge-1(iv) Account No. 0928000100071004 has been opened in the name of SGSY Self Help Organization. There are several transactions of transfer credits and cash withdrawal in the account. The amount of subsidies have been credited to this account from SRF A/c. 0928003182101 and CA subsidy account No. 0928002100002949 named Subsidy Reserve Fund account which has been immediately withdrawn in cash by the joint signatory of account, which is a blatant violation of Banks Guidelines. Shri Saha thus allowed misappropriation of Govt. subsidy." 4. The petitioner had submitted his show cause reply before the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the charge-sheet against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 05.02.2013, the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. In the enquiry, the petitioner was assisted by a Defence Representative. Preliminary hearing was held on 26.03.2013 and subsequent hearings were held on 03.02.2013, 08.05.2013 and 14.05.2013. While the management had marked Exhibits ME-1 to ME-20, the petitioner had marked Exhibits DE-1 to DE-9. On conclusion of the enquiry. The Enquiry Report reveals that the Defence Representative had remained absent all throughout and although by letter he requested 15 days time for preparing defence assistance, but did not turn up. 5. As per the Enquiry Report, the charges were held to have been proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, vide letter dated 18.07.2013, the Disciplinary Authority had forwarded the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 08.07.2013 in respect of charge- sheet submitted against the petitioner, asking the petitioner to give his submissions on the said Enquiry Report by 27.07.2013. The petitioner had given his submissions vide letter dated 05.08.2013. However, the disciplinary authority, vide order No. V- 5823(IACV-5329) dated 05.09.2013, held that all four charges against the petitioner had been proved and it was held that the charge under Article-I was proved. Accordingly, by holding that huge fund of the bank as well as Government has been put to jeopardy and imposed the major penalty of "removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment" and such penalty was ordered in terms of Rule 4(1) of PNB Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1997. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager, Personnel administration Department-Cum-Appellate Authority on 18.09.2013. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager, Personnel administration Department-Cum-Appellate Authority on 18.09.2013. The said appellate authority by his order No. PAD/DAC/HO/20579 dated 16.05.2014 rejected the appeal and confirmed the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 7. Assailing the imposition of major penalty, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner had joined as the Manager, BO, Rupahihat, he found that subsidies of Rs. 65,08,965/- received from District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) and subsidy of Rs. 3,40,557/- from NABARD was lying in the Branch. However, his predecessor in office had not sanctioned and disbursed any loan against which subsidies were received by the Branch. On analyzing the situation, the petitioner found that most of the loans previously sanctioned had gone bad and no recovery was forthcoming and that he could not trace out the defaulting borrowers. Therefore, in order to prevent any jeopardy to the banks fund, he did not sanction or disburse any further loan. Therefore, when the beneficiary did not get loans, they had targeted the petitioner and as no protection from police or politicians could be got, while deciding not to jeopardize the banks funds to the extent of principal about Rs. 5.00 Crore, he had kept the borrowers satisfied by disbursing subsidy of amount Rs. 65,08,965/- directly in bank account of the beneficiaries with the approval of the DRDA, only after the Block Officials had ascertaining their identities. It is submitted that the letters of approval from DRDA was exhibited by the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding, which was totally ignored. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted that as the Government, from whom the subsidy amount was received had granted approval to disburse subsidy amount, the petitioner could not have been accused of misconduct so as to warrant his removal from service, when it is a matter of record that for his good service rendered in BO, Ropahihat, the petitioner as well as all other staff in the said Branch were given financial incentives. Moreover, it is submitted that as the subsidy amount were given directly to the beneficiaries through their account, there was no misappropriation of funds by the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated by non- application of mind and displayed the premeditated mind of the disciplinary authority to remove the petitioner from service. Moreover, it is submitted that as the subsidy amount were given directly to the beneficiaries through their account, there was no misappropriation of funds by the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated by non- application of mind and displayed the premeditated mind of the disciplinary authority to remove the petitioner from service. It is further submitted that in this case the petitioner had displayed exemplary honesty by admitting that he had not scrupulously followed the rules, but the petitioner had explained that such procedure was adopted to safeguard banks funds because if he had granted and disbursed loans, all such loans would have become bad debts for the bank and accordingly, banks interest was not jeopardized. However, this factor was completely ignored. 8. It is submitted that having put in several years of dedicate service, the petitioner was entitled to such gratuity and such Provident Fund benefit as had accrued in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that even if the petitioner had been terminated from service, such accrued benefit cannot be taken away notwithstanding Regulation 22 of the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995. In this regard, it is submitted that under Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the respondent bank can frame a better scheme, but a right that has accrued on the petitioner cannot be taken away. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases, viz. United Bank of India vs. Amaresh Narayan Chowdhury, 2018 (5) GLT 776, KSL and Industries Limited vs. Arihant Threads Limited and Others, (2008) 9 SCC 763 , T.K. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2013) 3 SCC 472 and Bank of Baroda vs. S.K. Kool (Dead) through LRs. (2014) 2 SCC 715 . 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had admitted in course of disciplinary proceeding that he had not followed the rules. In this regard, it is stated that one would become entitled to subsidy only if he qualified for, sanctioned and disbursed the loan by the bank. It is further submitted that the subsidy amount deposited by the DRDA and NABARD were not a dole-out to the borrowers without any loan being disbursed. In this regard, it is stated that one would become entitled to subsidy only if he qualified for, sanctioned and disbursed the loan by the bank. It is further submitted that the subsidy amount deposited by the DRDA and NABARD were not a dole-out to the borrowers without any loan being disbursed. Hence, the petitioner had jeopardized the interest of the bank to the extent of the subsidy value of Rs. 65,08,965/- received from the DRDA. Moreover, it is submitted that if there was no claimant for the subsidy of Rs. 3,40,557/- from NABARD, the petitioner was required to refund it to the NABARD. It is further submitted that as per the rules relating to handling of the subsidy amount received, it was provided that such money should be parked in Subsidy Reserve Fund (SRF), but instead, the petitioner kept such money in Fixed Deposit Accounts. However, before the lock-in period of fixed deposits, the Fixed Deposit accounts were closed and the money was credited to the savings bank account of concerned parties/ Self Help Groups. It is submitted that money lying in SRF did not burden the bank with any interest. However, as money was allowed to be parked in fixed deposit account, the bank was burdened with liability of paying interest. Moreover, it is submitted that the subsidy amount was not to be paid in cash to the beneficiary, but the borrower became entitled to subsidy in case loan is disbursed. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner had jeopardized the bank money because they may have to return the ineligible subsidy amount disbursed in violation of guidelines. 10. It is submitted that charge No. 1(i) of keeping Rs. 79,06,262/- in SRF against 79 accounts and non- refunding of Rs. 3,40,557/- to NABANRD was proved. The charge No. 1(ii) of keeping DRDA subsidy amount in FDR instead of parking such money in SRF and crediting Savings Fund amount without ensuring lock-in period was proved. Similarly, Charge No. 1(iii) of immediately crediting DRDA subsidy amount in loan account or Savings Fund Account on realization of Bank Charges instead of parking in SRF and allowing such funds to be withdrawn without sanctioning any loan, and without ensuring lock-in period, which amounted to misappropriation of Government Subsidy was proved. Similarly, Charge No. 1(iii) of immediately crediting DRDA subsidy amount in loan account or Savings Fund Account on realization of Bank Charges instead of parking in SRF and allowing such funds to be withdrawn without sanctioning any loan, and without ensuring lock-in period, which amounted to misappropriation of Government Subsidy was proved. It is further submitted that against charge No. 1(iv), it was proved that the petitioner had allowed opening of one account in the name of SGSY Self Help Organisation, where several credit transfer from SRF account was made and subsequent cash withdrawal was allowed, was also proved, which was in blatant violation of guidelines. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the categorical admission by the petitioner, there was no infirmity in the disciplinary proceeding or in awarding punishment of removal from service warranted any interference by this Court. 11. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following cases, viz. (i) Judgment and order dated 11.04.2012 by Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 8450 to 8459 of 2012, M. Azeez and Others vs. Indian Bank, (ii) Judgment and order dated 16.07.2014 by Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 15864 of 2014, United Bank of India vs. Pranab Kumar Bhuiyan, (iii) Allahabad Bank and Another vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 , (iv) P. Ranjan Sandhi vs. Union of India and Another, (2010) 10 SCC 338 , (v) Rattiram vs. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516 . 12. It is seen that the petitioner had admitted the charges against him. However, he had given his explanation for not adhering to the guidelines and his attempt was to justify disbursement of subsidy without sanctioning or disbursing any loan. Apart from such stand, the petitioner has not been able to establish any illegality or perversity in the disciplinary proceedings or in the punishment order dated 05.09.2013 or in the appellate order dated 16.05.2014. 13. In the opinion of this Court, since the petitioner had admitted the charges leveled against him in the charge-sheet, and if the finding recorded in the disciplinary proceeding is that the Rules and guidelines had been flouted, there was no need for the Bank to have held any inquiry into the charges when the charges stood proved on admission of the petitioner. Thus, this Court finds that the respondent Bank was justified in imposing punishment on the petitioner as prescribed in the Rules. This Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned punishment order. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the charge, the punishment imposed on the appellant does not appear to be disproportionate, calling for no interference therein. In this regard, this Court finds support from the ratio laid down in the case of Surjeet Singh Bhamra vs. Bank of India, (2016) 4 SCC 204 , wherein it has, inter-alia, been held that once the delinquent officer had admitted the charges, appropriate punishment as prescribed in the Rules could be inflicted on him. It was for the Appointing and/or the Disciplinary Authority to have taken into account the seriousness of the charge, explanation offered by the petitioner and overall performance of the petitioner while imposing punishment. In light of the discussions above, the sufficiency of evidence and whether actually any interest of the bank was compromised by the petitioner cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India as this Court is not satisfied that there was any illegality or perversity in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings or that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned orders call for no interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No cost.