Patna High Court
Deepak Kumar Sinha vs The Bank Of India And Ors. on 26 June, 2006
Author: Barin Ghosh
Bench: Barin Ghosh
JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, J.
Page 1699
1. Heard both the parties.
2. Petitioner was working at Chandaur Branch of Bank of India. The said Branch was under the administrative control of Bhagalpur Regional Office of the said Bank. Petitioner was transferred from the said Branch to Saharsa Branch of the said Bank and was waiting for his reliever. The reliever of the petitioner came on 17th July, 1997 to Chandaur Branch and took over charge of the said Branch when the petitioner was not present.
3. Subsequent thereto on 30th November, 1998, a charge-sheet, containing six charges, was issued to the petitioner and thereby a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. On 1st June, 1999, a supplementary charge-sheet was issued to include two more charges. Petitioner did not give any affective reply to the charge-sheet or to the supplementary charge-sheet. The matter was thereupon enquired into by an Enquiry Officer. In course of enquiry, witnesses deposed on behalf of prosecution and several documents were tendered in evidence by those witnesses. Petitioner did not examine himself or anyone else before the Enquiry Officer. Before the Enquiry Officer, petitioner submitted his statements on defence. The Enquiry Officer thereupon made his report and a copy thereof was served upon the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found that all the eight charges stand proved against the petitioner. Petitioner dealt with the Enquiry Report by a letter. Subsequent thereto, the Impugned Order of punishment was passed.
4. In the Impugned Order, the Disciplinary Authority held out that the petitioner was guilty of all those eight charges and awarded major punishment in relation to Charges No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and minor punishments in relation to Charges No. 5, 6, 7 and 8.
5. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is contending that there was no just reason to award such major punishment to the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner is contending that he is not throwing challenge to the decision of the Disciplinary Authority in relation to Charges No. 5, 6, 7 and 8.
6. The Charges No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are as follows:
Charge No. 1: That you sanctioned/disbursed loans in 20 Accounts for purchase of Tractors/Trailors without complying the lending norms of the Bank such as non-obtention of No-Dues/No-objection Certificates from other Banks and non-obtention of administrative clearance from the competent authority at Regional Office, Bhagalpur, financing tractors in 9 loan a/cs, out of 20 accounts out of service area of the Branch, Non-reporting of sanction to the controlling authority, keeping loan documents completely blank, defective, in most of the accounts charge created on land with Sub-Registrar, Saharsa reported to be forged, trailors have not been supplied and also post-sanction inspections in roost of the said accounts have not been done, documentation in aforesaid accounts were reported to have been done in the show-room of M/S Krishi Vikas Kendra (authorised dealer of Escort Tractor). The details of above accounts are mentioned in Annexure A. Page 1700 Charge No. 2: That on 7.7.97 you authorised opening of a Current Account No. 28 in the name of one Shri Abdul Kalam with an initial deposit of Rs. 5000/-without obtaining introduction in the account opening form. Although on 8.7.97 you were unauthorisedly absent from duty, you however cancelled a cheque bearing No. 661351 dated 08.07.1997 of Rs. 95,000/- drawn in the account of Shri Abdul Kalam for payment causing thereby an overdraft of Rs. 90,000/- since there was only a balance of Rs. 5000/- in the said account and later the above amount of Rs. 95,000/- was transferred to the S/B A/C of one of the Tractor Loan Account of Shri K.M. Singh who used the same as margin money in his Tractor Loan A/C. Charge No. 3: That you reportedly kept the documents related to aforesaid 20 Tractor Loan A/Cs at your residence unauthorisedly as mentioned in Annexure A. You also issued drafts of Rs. 2,46,243/- and Rs. 48,485/- both dated 8.7.1997 favouring M/S Krishi Vikas Kendra (authorised dealer of Escort Tractors) and M/S Krishi Unnayan Kendra for Tractor & Trailor respectively from your residence while being unauthorisedly absent from duty from the Demand Draft Book which was in your possession and kept unauthorisedly at your residence. A D.D. Leaft No. 753755 which was reportedly missing from the branch Record was found from your possession which you returned alongwith your letter dated 5.8.1997 while joined duty at Chandaur Branch on 5.8.1997.
Charge No. 4: That you sanctioned an amount of Rs. 2 lac each in 3 Tractor Loan A/Cs of Shri Janardhan Yadav & Shri Moti Yadav, Shri Sudhir Yadav & Shri Lakshmi Prasad Yadav and Shri Ram Autar Mehta though the borrowers were chronic defaulters of State Bank of India, Damgarhi Branch without complying the lending norms of the Bank such as without obtaining No-dues/No-objection Certificates and without obtaining permission from competent authority for financing outside service area/block.
7. A look at these charges would show that the principal grievances against the petitioner were as follows:
a) He granted loans to 20 persons to purchase Tractors/ Trailors without complying with lending norms of the Bank, which norms had been specified as non-obtention of no dues/no objection certificates from other Banks and non-obtention of administrative clearance from the competent authority at Regional Office.
b) Out of 20 such loans, two loans were accorded to two persons, who were outside the service area of the Bank without reporting the same to the Controlling Authority.
c) Loan documents were kept completely blank and defective in most of the cases.
d) Charges as were created to secure the loans with the Sub-Registrar, Saharsa were reported to be forged.
e) Trailors have not been supplied and post sanction inspection in most of the said accounts have not been done and documentation in relation to those loans had been done in the show room of M/s Krishi Vikas Kendra, Authorised Dealor of Escot Tractor.
Page 1701
f) On 8th July, 1997, though the petitioner was absent from duty, he permitted a Cheque for Rs. 95,000/- to be passed and thereby caused an over draft of Rs. 90,000/- to be created in the account of Shri Abdul Kalam.
g) The documents relating to those loans were kept at the residence of the petitioner.
h) Petitioner issued drafts of Rs. 2,46,243/- and Rs. 48,485/- dated 8th July, 1997 from his residence while he was absent from duty and accordingly, the demand draft book was kept by the petitioner unauthorisedly at his residence.
i) Three Tractor loans were accorded to the borrowers, who were chronic defaulters of State Bank of India, Damgarhi Branch without complying with the lending norms of the employer Bank, namely without obtaining non-dues/No Objection Certificates and without obtaining permission from Competent Authority for financing outside the service area of the Branch.
8. It is a requirement to obtain no dues/no objection certificate from other banks before a loan is granted to a constituent of Bank of India had not been established in course of the enquiry. Chandaur Branch of Bank of India had an earmarked area of operation, had also not been established at the enquiry, although, witnesses held out that according to their knowledge, the said Branch had authority to operate within the area as mentioned by them before the Enquiry Officer.
9. The evidence disclosed before the Enquiry Officer revealed that the documents for each such loan, as was granted by the petitioner, were obtained and before the enquiry commenced whatever lacunas were there, the sane had been supplied. Therefore, at the stage of enquiry, there was not one single loan document, which was completely blank or defective.
10. In course of enquiry, certain declarations under Section 6(i) of the Bihar Agricultural Credit Act had been produced, which according to the prosecution were obtained by the petitioner for the purpose of creation of charge in favour of the Bank for the loans advanced for purchase of Tractors/Trailors. Those were held out to have been reported to be forged. In course of enquiry, prosecution witnesses alleged that an Officer of the Bank went to the office of the Registrar to verify the authenticity of those declarations when he came to learn that those are forged declarations containing forged seal and signature of the Registrar. A report to that effect prepared by a person so said to have been gone to the office of the Registrar was produced before the Enquiry Officer. The person, who created the report, however, did not depose before the Enquiry Officer.
11. There was no evidence that the Trailors have not been supplied or that there was no post sanction inspection of the accounts. At the same time, there was also no evidence that the documents pertaining to those loan transactions were obtained in the Show Room of M/s Krishi Vikas Kendra although people, who were not associated with the said Branch as on the date of grant of such loans, purported to contend the same before the Enquiry Officer.
12. The prosecution witness No. 3. in course of evidence before the Enquiry Officer, sought to hold out that the petitioner was present at Chandaur Branch on 8th July, 1997, but much prior thereto, he had given in writing a report to the successor of the petitioner to the effect that on 8th July, 1997, the petitioner had forwarded a Cheque for Rs. 95,000/- along with a letter requesting to Debit the account of the said account Page 1702 holder after granting him a Credit limit of Rs. 1 lakh and that on the self sane date, the petitioner went to him and handed him over the keys of the Branch and represented that he would go to Chandaur Branch later on. At the same time, the Attendence Register of the employees of the said Branch was produced before the Enquiry Officer, which suggested that although up to 7th July, 1997, the petitioner had signed his attendence Register but from 8th July, 1997 onwards, he did not do so and against that the expression "A" was marked signifying his absence. Before the Enquiry Officer, the Cheque for Rs. 95,000/- was produced, which suggested that the same was passed for payment on 7th July, 1997.
13. Before the Enquiry Officer, two vouchers were produced, which suggested that on 8th July, 1997, the petitioner authorised making of two drafts for Rs. 2,46,243/- and Rs. 48,485/- but the fact remains that these two drafts were not produced before the Enquiry Officer. However, in the statements on defence the. petitioner admitted that two drafts were issued on 8th July, 1997. There is no dispute that those two drafts were issued in relation to those loans.
14. A look at the declarations under Section 6(i) of Bihar Agricultural Credit Act would show that most of them do not contain any particulars of the land in respect whereof charge was purportedly created thereby. In relation to some of these declarations, separate sheets were allegedly enclosed. The dates underneath signatures as were put in those separate sheets purportedly by the Sub-Registrar do not tally with the dates purportedly put in by the Sub-Registrar on the declarations themselves. The declarations do not suggest that any of them has been registered in any register kept and maintained by the Office of the Sub-Registrar.
15. The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner though did not attend Chandaur Branch on 8th July, 1997, but still then he operated from his residence in the matter of passing the Cheque for Rs. 95,000/- and in the matter of issuing Bank Drafts of Rs. 2,46,243/- and Rs. 48,485/-. It was, thus, insinuated that in order to facilitate such functioning important security documents, including demand draft book was kept by the petitioner at his residence.
16. The transactions pertaining to allowing encashment of cheque for Rs. 95,000/- and issuing of Bank Drafts for Rs. 2,46,243/- and Rs. 48,485/- relate to the same transaction, i.e. grant of loans to purchase Tractors/ Trailors.
17. Until such time, the matter was concluded by the Disciplinary Authority no attempt was made by the petitioner to establish that on 8th July, 1997, the petitioner was, in fact, present at Chandaur Branch and discharged some of his usual official duties apart from those pertaining to the said Cheque and the said drafts. Although, a prosecution witness purported to hold out during the course of enquiry that the petitioner was present at Chandaur Branch on 8th July, 1997 but as against that there was a written report by the self same witness, as aforesaid, holding out to the successor of the petitioner that on 8th July, 1997, the petitioner forwarded the said Cheque to him through a sub staff and while he was going to the Branch, the petitioner handed over the keys to him and that suggests that the petitioner had handed over the keys at his residence.
18. At the same time, it is also true that although those declarations were mostly blank, but they contained purported signatures of Anchal Adhikari as well as that of the Sub-Registrar and neither the Anchal Adhikari or the Sub-Registrar came to Page 1703 depose before the Enquiry Officer or submitted under their hand any report to the Bank or to any officer of the Bank that those declarations contained forged seal or signature of them. At the same time, there is also no dispute that the declarations were blank and did not suggest that they have been registered in any book or record of the Sub-Register.
19. In a situation of this nature, if a person concludes that the petitioner did not attend his office on 8th July, 1997 and operated from his house and while so operating authorised encashment of a Cheque and issuance of two drafts and then issued the drafts, and on the basis thereof an opinion is formed that the petitioner retained the demand draft book at his residence or even if the petitioner was not keeping the demand draft book in his residence, he must have had the bank drafts at his residence for being issued and at the same time, if it is concluded that a Registrar will register a complete document and not a blank document and will give his mark of registration identifying where the registered document has been entered and on the basis thereof if an opinion is formed that the document of declaration, namely declarations obtained by the petitioner in his own wisdom, were forged document, can it be said that such a conclusion on the basis of records could not be had ?
20. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, being not an Appellate Authority, can only look into the records considered by the authority concerned in coming to the conclusion and can come to an opinion as to whether on such records, a prudent person can opine in the manner the authority concerned has opined.
21. If, therefore, on the basis of the records, it can be opined that the petitioner had brought or kept security documents at his residence and permitted forged declarations to be recorded as security documents in respect of. the loans in question, it would be difficult for the Court in exercise of its power of Judicial review to interefere with such opinion.
22. Having regard to the fact that the Bank Officer is not an ordinary employee, for his position is that of a trustee of public money, it is not only important how he should act but it is also important whether he has been able to gather the responsibilities bestowed upon him by reason of his appointment as such Officer.
23. In a situation of this nature, although there is no direct loss to the Bank, but if by reason of the conduct, as disclosed in the enquiry, the bank is of the opinion that it would not be safe for the Bank to continue to keep the petitioner in trust of the public money, the Court exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interefere with.
24. For the reasons, as above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.