Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 513 (AP)

M. Ravi Chandra Raju v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-10

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in suspending the petitioner by issuing the suspension proceedings in Rc.No.HRD/M-1/Disciplinary Action/ 2020-21 dated 17.04.2020, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and its Rules and A.P State Cooperative Bank Limited Staff Service Regulations and also in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as paid Secretary in Siddavatam PACS in the year 1987 and thereafter he joined as Special Category Assistant in the Central Bank on 01.03.2009 and later he got promoted as Assistant Manager on 31.03.2016. It is stated that from 03.05.2016 to 03.10.2017 he worked as Assistant Manager of Kamalapuram KDCC and he also worked as incharge Manager of the Branch as well as Supervisor. In that period, the 2nd respondent has sanctioned 120 short term other loans to the farmers. For the purpose of sanctioning loan, the farmers have to make applications by enclosing their 1-B register, adangals etc. and after scrutiny the 2nd respondent-bank would sanction loan to the farmers by mortgaging their lands in favour of the bank and the original mortgage deed would be sent to the Sub Registrar Office to make an entry. The said loan disbursement process was held in the month of February and March, 2017 itself. Later, he was transferred to Central Bank and as of now the petitioner is working as Assistant Manager in the Legal Section in Central bank, Kadapa. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that the Deputy Manager of the 2nd respondent bank has issued a notice dated 28.10.2019 asking the petitioner to submit his explanation within 15 days by rectifying the defects in disbursing the loans. In the show cause notice, it is stated that the petitioner without verification of loan mortgage details recorded in the respective Sub Registrar Office, issued the loans. In the show cause notice, it is stated that the petitioner without verification of loan mortgage details recorded in the respective Sub Registrar Office, issued the loans. It is further mentioned that mortgage land as mentioned in the tabular form was not mortgaged in favour of the bank till today, as such there is no authority on the loan applicants against the mortgage deeds and no action can be taken on the loan which was disbursed to the society. It is further stated in the notice that when any application is received from the society for loan disbursement to the Branch, as per Bank rules and regulations obtain the encumbrance certificate and should disburse the loan amount only when the mortgage land is registered in the office of Sub Registrar in favour of the Bank. But the petitioner disbursed 8 loan applications without following the Bank rules and regulations and an explanation was sought from the petitioner on the above defects. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 29.02.2020 to the 2nd respondent stating that during the relevant period he worked as incharge Manager of the Bank as well Supervisor and several long term and short term loans have been disbursed. He further stated in the explanation that some of the loans which were granted by him were cleared and requested time till the end of March to rectify the mistakes and further requested to permit him to verify the loan applications and relevant documents and to provide Photostat copies of necessary documents. Then the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 17.04.2020 suspending the petitioner with immediate effect and ordered for a detailed enquiry to calculate the total loss in this regard to the Bank. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as of now the petitioner is 57 years old and he requested for enhancement of age of superannuation by making representation dated 30.01.2020 from 58 years to 60 years on par with other Central Banks. There is no response from the respondents in his regard. However a final notice dated 04.02.2020 was sent reiterating the contents of the earlier notices and asked to submit his explanation within 10 days. Then the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 29.02.2020. There is no response from the respondents in his regard. However a final notice dated 04.02.2020 was sent reiterating the contents of the earlier notices and asked to submit his explanation within 10 days. Then the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 29.02.2020. Learned counsel would submit that even the Bank accepts that some of the loans were cleared and the petitioner could not give proper reply to the respondents as Xerox copies of relevant documents were not furnished to him. The petitioner applied for medical leave from 11.03.2020 to 20.03.2020 and he joined duty on 21.03.2020. After that the petitioner received the notice and due to COVID-19 situation, he could not secure all the documents to submit his explanation within the time. Though the petitioner has requested the Bank to extend time till the end of March, he could not submit his explanation due to non-supply of documents. Further, the petitioner is in the fond hope of extension of retirement age, the 2nd respondent straightaway in an irregular and arbitrary manner without taking into consideration the pandemic situation issued the impugned proceedings dated 17.04.2020 by suspending him from service, which has caused lot of mental agony to the petitioner. He would further submit that the impugned order is totally unwarranted and even the circumstances stated in the impugned order does not require to place the petitioner under suspension. 7. Per contra, Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent-bank would submit that the impugned proceedings were issued in terms of provisions under XIV-DXC of bye-laws of the DCC Bank Limited, Kadapa and strictly as per the service regulations of the employee of the Bank. It is submitted that when the petitioner was working as Special Cadre Staff Assistant at Sidhout Branch, he was placed under suspension by order dated 11.01.2020 on the ground of committing some irregularities. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12346 of 2010 before this Court, wherein this Court passed an interim order on 18.06.2010 for reinstatement into service duly warning the petitioner not to repeat such mistakes in future. Again after reinstatement, the petitioner was suspended while he was working as incharge Manager of Sidhout Branch by proceedings dated 20.04.2018 on the ground that the petitioner was responsible for missing of 4 gold bags worth Rs.13.00 lakhs in Sidhout branch. Again after reinstatement, the petitioner was suspended while he was working as incharge Manager of Sidhout Branch by proceedings dated 20.04.2018 on the ground that the petitioner was responsible for missing of 4 gold bags worth Rs.13.00 lakhs in Sidhout branch. In the enquiry charge was held to be proved against the petitioner, but on humanitarian grounds and on deposit of entire Rs.13.00 lakhs by the petitioner, he was reinstated into service by order dated 29.11.2018. 8. Learned Counsel would submit that in the present case, the petitioner being incharge Manager has recommended 13 loans and disbursed a sum of Rs.58.75 lakhs in violation of loan sanction order (LSO), which was indicated in loan application and also loan policy conditions. While disbursing the loan to the customer, he must ensure that the property of the customer shall be mortgaged in the name of the bank and should also ensure that the said mortgage is entered in encumbrance certificate so that the loanee cannot sell the property to any third party unless and until, he clears the loan obtained from the respondent bank. In case loanee failed to repay the loan amount, the respondent bank can recover the same by instituting the recovery proceedings. But the petitioner giving go-by to this procedure has disbursed the loan amount to customer by 31.03.2017 and the 2nd respondent bank was not aware of this, as the petitioner worked in the Branch till 21.08.2019. In the month of October, 2019 when the bank reviewed the dues position of the branch, it came to know about the irregularities committed by the petitioner. Hence a notice dated 28.10.2018 was issued asking the petitioner to rectify the mistakes and submit his explanation within 15 days. But as there was no response, again a reminder dated 03.12.2019 was issued to the petitioner. Then having waited four months, a final notice dated 04.02.2020 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation within 7 days and to rectify the violations/mistakes committed by him while disbursing loans. 9. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner came up with an explanation dated 29.02.2020 beyond stipulated time duly admitting his mistakes and also admitted that he need to rectify the same and requested time to do so. Finally, another notice was issued on 12.03.2020 giving time till 31.03.2020. 9. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner came up with an explanation dated 29.02.2020 beyond stipulated time duly admitting his mistakes and also admitted that he need to rectify the same and requested time to do so. Finally, another notice was issued on 12.03.2020 giving time till 31.03.2020. He further submits that the bank is suffering with financial crisis and unable to recover the loans, unless and until the petitioner rectify the violations/mistakes committed by him. The petitioner is very much interested to continue him upto 60 years, but not interested to rectify the mistakes committed by him. The 2nd respondent bank denied the allegation that the petitioner was not permitted to inspect the loan applications. It is argued that the petitioner is residing nearby the Head Office and there is 20 KMs distance to reach the Sub Registrar Office to rectify his mistakes. In the representation dated 29.02.2020 the petitioner has admitted that there is a small negligence on his part. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that due to said negligence of the petitioner, the bank is going to sustain loss with increased NPA for an amount of around Rs.60.00 lakhs. Learned Standing Counsel would sum up his arguments by stating that there is no irregularity in placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 10. It is pertinent to note that the Bank Manager before disbursing the loan amount has to invariably get the property mortgaged in favour of the bank towards security for the loan. But in this case, the petitioner failed to get the mortgage deed registered in the Sub Registrar Office before disbursing the loan amount. The petitioner cannot plead that it is a simple mistake and it will definitely amounts to negligence in discharging the duties, due to which the bank would sustain huge financial loss and it will have great ramifications. Even the past conduct of the petitioner also reveals that the petitioner was discharging his duties negligently. In the instant case, though the notice was issued on 28.10.2019, he kept quiet till February and even in the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 29.02.2020, he has admitted that a small mistake has been committed by him. The petitioner does not deserve any kind of interference or sympathy from this Court. In the instant case, though the notice was issued on 28.10.2019, he kept quiet till February and even in the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 29.02.2020, he has admitted that a small mistake has been committed by him. The petitioner does not deserve any kind of interference or sympathy from this Court. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.