Karnataka High Court
P Raghuram S/O P. Ramaiah vs The General Manager on 4 October, 2023
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:35788
WP No. 7462 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 7462 OF 2003 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
P.RAGHURAM,
S/O SRI.P.RAMAIAH, HINDU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:EX.BRANCH MANAGER,
R/O FLAT No.302, GOLDEN TOWERS,
STREET No.8, HABSIGUDA,
HUDERABAD-500 007.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VIGHNESHWARA.S.SHASTRY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.RANJAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL)/
APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
Digitally VIJAYA BANK, 41/2, M.G.ROAD,
signed by BANGALORE-560 001.
PANKAJA S
Location:
HIGH 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
COURT OF (PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT),
KARNATAKA
M/s VIJAYA BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
41/2, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYA BANK,
97/1, PARK STREET, KOLKATTA.
4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYA BANK,
BASHEER BAGH, HYDERBAD.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:35788
WP No. 7462 of 2003
(BY SRI.S.S.RAMDAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.S.R.KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED:13.12.2001 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-Q, ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 04.09.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of dismissal that had been passed against him, which has also been confirmed in appeal.
2. This writ petition was initially allowed by an order dated 25.10.2006 and the order of dismissal from service was set aside.
3. This order in the writ petition was also confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2167 of 2006, on 05.12.2011.
4. The Bank, thereafter, preferred a Special Leave Petition in SLP No.34040 of 2012 (Civil Appeal No.7737 of -3- NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 2014) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was allowed on 14.08.2014. The order passed by the Division Bench was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Division Bench for fresh disposal of the appeal.
5. Pursuant to the said order, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.03.2019, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in which the order of dismissal from service was set aside. Thereafter, the matter was remitted to this Court for fresh consideration of the plea of the writ petitioner insofar as the merits of the case was concerned.
6. As a result of these orders, the matter is once again taken up for consideration on merits.
7. On 17.05.2000, a Charge Memo came to be issued to the petitioner leveling thirteen charges against him. All these charges basically alleged that the petitioner had not followed the established procedures while discharging his duties.
-4-NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003
8. On the conclusion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that Charge Nos.1 to 4 and 7 to 12 had been proved, while Charge Nos.5, 6 and 13 were partly proved.
9. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, who, in turn, gave a reply. Pursuant to his reply, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass an order accepting the enquiry report and passed different orders of punishment in respect of different charges, and in respect of Charge Nos.10 and 11, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal form service with immediate effect, which would also disqualify him for future employments.
10. Being aggrieved by this order of punishment, the petitioner had preferred an appeal.
11. The Appellate Authority, on consideration of the said appeal, came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal and it proceeded to dismiss the same.
-5-NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003
12. At the outset, it would be pertinent to advert to the thirteen charges that were leveled against the petitioner and the same read as under:
"CHARGE No. 1Articles of Charge:
You were working as a Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1977 to 09/97/1999.
During your tenure as Branch manager at Cuttack branch, you had sanctioned and disbursed pronote loans to several borrowers under your delegated power for promoting small business. A scrutiny of the relative pronote loans accounts reveals that out of the said pronote loans, you had sanctioned and disbursed pronote loans to as many as thirty four borrowers under pronote loan accounts bearing No. 05/97 (A), 1/98 to 03/98, 05/98, 14/98 to 16/98, 18/98 to 20/98, 25/98 to 28/98, 30/98, 33/98 to 35/98, 44/98, 47/98 to 51/98, 53/98, 55/98, 58/98, 61/98 to 62/98, 75/98, 67/98 to 68/222298 and 70/98 without obtaining from them basic documents such as duly filled / in loan applications, assets and liabilities statements/income tax returns/sales tax returns indicating their regular income and trade licence showing the nature of business activity undertaken by them. It is further revealed that you had sanctioned and disbursed the said pronote loans -6- NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 without conducting any pre-sanction inspection in regard to business dealings and nature of business activity undertaken by the said borrowers and without preparing any process note, justifying your action in sanctioning the said pronote loans. In respect of 19 pronote loan accounts bearing No. 1/98 to 03/98, 05/98, 14/98 to 15/98, 18/98, 20/98, 30/98, 44/98, 47/98 49/98, 51/98, 53/98, 55/98, 58/98, 65/98, 68/98 and 70/98, you had sanctioned and disbursed pronote loans to the borrowers without watching operations in their S.B./Current account at the branch for a reasonable period or conducting enquiries in regard to their reputation in the market and thus it is evident that the said borrowers had opened their S.B./Current accounts at the branch with a view to availing of pronote loans from the Bank. The foregoing facts and circumstances of the case indicate that you had sanctioned and disbursed pronote loans to the borrowers without actually assessing creditworthiness as well as eligiblity for loans from the Bank. Before disbursement of proceeds of the above said pronote loans to the borrowers, you had neither communicated to them regarding sanction of loans as well as sanction terms and conditions stipulated in connection with sanction of the said loans nor obtained relative loans documents from the borrowers for charging security created out of the Bank's finance as primary security in favour of the Bank or obtained any other collateral security from the borrowers so as to safeguard interest of the Bank and thereby you contravened the -7- NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 provisions laid down vide Head Office Codified Circular No. 153/93 dated 31/12/1993. At the post- disbursement stage, you had neither ensured proper end-use of proceeds of the pronote loans released to the borrowers by way of conducting inspections at their business locations nor taken any step for recovery of the said loans by way of following-up the matter with the borrowers, as a result of which, most of the said pronote loan accounts have shown the symptom of becoming overdue/sticky. You action in sanctioning and disbursing the above said pronote loans to the borrowers in violation of the lending norms and guidelines stipulated by the Bank and not taking timely steps for recovery of the loans from the borrowers has exposed the Bank to financial loss.
Out of the above said pronote loans, you had sanctioned and disbursed pronote loans to Rs. 2,00,000/- to three members of one family under pronote loan accounts bearing No. 33/98 to 35/98 for promoting small business despite the fact that the said borrowers were closely related to each other and the borrowers to whom pronote loans were sanctioned under pronote loan account Nos. 33/98 to 35/98 had already availed of an OD limit of Rs. 2.90 lakhs and CC limit of Rs. 2.00 lakhs respectively at the branch. It is, therefore, evident that the borrowers who had availed of pronote loans under PL A/c No. 33/98 to 35/98 for promoting small business were not actually engaged in small business and you had sanctioned and disbursed the said pronote loans, -8- NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 exceeding the delegated power conferred on you vide Head Office Circular No. 17/97 dated 01/02/1997 and thereby you had accommodated the above said members at the cost and risk of the Bank.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out yout involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above said acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer and thereby you have committed serious acts of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981.CHARGE No. 2
Articles of Charge:
You were working as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1977 to 09/07/1999.
During your tenure as Branch manager at Cuttack branch, you had sanctioned and disbursed twelve pronote loans to the teachers and other staff members of New Stewart School under PL A/c Nos. 21/97 to 23/97, 22/98 to 23/98, 37/98, 56/98, 59/98, 60/98, 63/98, 64/98 and 69/98 without obtaining undertaking letters from the competent authorities of the school in terms of the provisions -9- NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 laid down in Head Office Circular No. 11/94 dated 25/01/1994 governing V-Cash scheme and without ensuring regular repayment of the said loans by the teachers and other staff members of the school. Apart from the above, you had also sanctioned and disbursed pronote loans to ten other salaried persons under pronote loan accounts bearing No 7/98, 24/98, 29/98, 31/98 to 32/98, 40/98 to 41/98, 52/98, 57/98 and 66/98 without covering the loans under V-Cash scheme and without ensuring regular repayment of the said loans by the salaried persons. You had also sanctioned and disbursed a pronote loan amounting to Rs. 25,000/- under PL A/c No. 57/98 to one borrower namely Shri. Kishore Chandra Panda despite the fact that the said borrower had already defaulted in repayment of PL A/c No. 09/97 availed by him at the branch earlier. Even though the said borrower was working as a Clerk in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, you had nether got the said pronote loan covered under V-Cash scheme nor obtained an undertaking letter from the competent authority of the Tribunal in consonance with the provisions prescribed in Head Office Circular No. 11/94 dated 25/01/1994 for remittance of instalments from time to time towards repayment of the loan. Besides the above, you had also sanctioned and disbursed pronote loans under PL A/c No. 44/98 and 49/98 to one Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) and another salaried person for Rs. 50,000/- each respectively without obtaining employment and salary particulars of the salaried persons concerned
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 and without obtaining other documents which are necessary for sanction and disbursement of loans to salaried persons. However, you had failed to sanction the pronote loans pertaining to PL A/c No. 49/98 under V-Cash scheme. At the post-
sanction/disbursement stage, you had neither ensured proper end-use of proceeds of the pronote loans under V-Cash scheme released to the borrowers nor taken steps for recovery of the loans from the borrowers, as a result of which most of the said pronote loan accounts have shown the symptom of becoming overdue/sticky. Your action in sanctioning and disbursing the above said pronote loans to the borrowers in contravention of guidelines stipulated in Head Office Circular' No. 11/94 dated 25/01/1994 has exposed the Bank to risk of financial risk and thereby you have failed to safeguard interest of the Bank.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your Involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above said acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer and thereby you have committed serious acts of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 CHARGE No. 3 Articles of Charge:
You were working as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1977 to 09/07/1999. During your tenure as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch, you had sanctioned and disbursed secured loans to twenty one borrowers under secured loan (SL) accounts bearing No. 02/97 to 03/97, 06/97 to 07/97, 01/98 to 04/98, 06/98 to 18/98 for procurement of fixed assets. On a scrutiny of the above said secured loan accounts, it is revealed that you had neither obtained duly filled in loan applications and other relevant documents from the borrowers nor you had prepared process notes for assessment of creditworthiness as well as actual requirement of the Bank's finance by the borrowers. Before sanction and disbursement of secured loan in respect of SL A/c No. 4/98, you had not conducted any pre-sanction inspection to find out as to whether the borrower was actually engaged in the activity as declared by him in the relative loan application. Even though it is stated that the proceeds of the secured loans along with the margin moneys were remitted to the respective suppliers for supply of fixed assets to the borrowers, the covering letters addressed to the suppliers in token of remittance of money, stamped receipts and invoices etc. were not available at the branch to show that proceeds of the loans were actually received by the suppliers from the branch for supply of fixed assets to the borrowers, as
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 mentioned by them in their loan applications. At the post-sanction/disbursement stage, you had not ascertained the actual status of securities created out of the Bank's finance so as to ensure end-use of the funds. You had also not initiated any step for recovery of the loans from the borrowers. From the foregoing, it is observed that you had not adhered to the provisions laid down in Head Office Codified Circular No.153/93 dated 31/12/1993 at the time of sanction and disbursement of secured loans to the borrowers and thereby you exposed the Bank to risk of financial loss.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above said acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer and thereby you have committed serious acts of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981.
CHARGE No.4 Article of Charge:
You were working as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 3/05/1997 to 09/07/1999.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 During your tenure as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch, you had sanctioned and disbursed loans against motor vehicles (LMV) against twenty three borrowers under LMV A/c No. 02/97, 01/98 to 15/98, 15/98 (A), 16/98 to 19/98, and 01/99 to 02/99.
For purchase various types of vehicles without preparing estimation of income and expenditure of the particles concerned. You had also not calculated the DSCR and repaying capacity of the borrowers. Subsequent to remittance of proceeds of the LMVs along with margin moneys to the dealers of the vehicles, you had not obtained invoices, stamped receipts from the dealers/borrowers and copiers of R.C. hooks and duplicate keys of the vehicles from the borrowers. Apart from the above, the covering letters reportedly addressed by you the dealers of the vehicles for sending stamped receipts and invoice to the bank and arranging for nothing the bank's naming the relative RC books, were also not available on record at the branch. Under the circumstances, it is not known as to whether the vehicles were actually delivered by the dealers to the borrowers and the same were registered in the name of the Bank. In respect of Six LMV accounts bearing No. 05/98, 10/98, 14/98, and 17/98 to 19/98, you had sanctioned and disbursed loans to the borrowers without watching operations in their S.B. accounts at the branch for a reasonable period. It is, therefore, evident that you had sanctioned and disbursed the above said LMVs to the borrowers in violation of the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 provisions/guidelines laid down by the Bank to that effect in Chapter vii of Book of Instructions (Advances) (Volume-ii) and you had not initiated any step in the matter of recovery of loans from the borrowers at the Post-disbursement stage, as a result of which most of the LMV accounts have become overdue/sticky, thereby exposing the Bank to risk of financial loss.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer and thereby you have committed serious acts of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer employees (conduct) Regulations, 1981.
CHARGE No.5 Article of Charge You were working as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1997 to 09/07/1999.
During your tenure as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch, you had sanctioned and disbursed cash credit facilities to certain borrowers under CC A/c bearing Nos. 10/97 to 12/97, 14/07, 01/98 to 07/98 and
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 01/99. On a scrutiny of the relevant documents of the above said cash credit accounts, it is revealed that you had sanctioned and disbursed CC facilities to the said borrowers without obtaining relevant financial statements from the borrowers and without preparing any process note to that effect, justifying your action in sanctioning loans to the said borrowers. It is, therefore, evident that you had sanctioned CC facilities to the said borrowers without assessing need based credit requirement of the said borrowers and without ascertaining their creditworthiness. At the post-sanction/disbursement state, you had failed to regulate the drawing power of the borrowers relating to CC accounts bearing No. 11/97, 12/97, 14/97, 01/98 to 02/98 and 05/98 to 06/98 by way of maintaining drawing power register properly in respect of each borrower, as a result of which, financial discipline could not be enforced on them. A further study of the above said CC accounts reveals that you had sanctioned CC facility to M/s. Esquire Traders under CC A/c No.06/98 without effecting proper documentation and without obtaining completely filled in loan documents from the borrower. Similarly, in respect of CC accounts of M/s.Shyam Marketing Agency and M/s Tyre Centre, you had not ensured that the deposit receipts obtained from the proprietors were properly discharged. Apart from the above, you were also in the habit of allowing overdrawing in CC accounts of the parties in excess of the delegated powers conferred on you in the Booklet on Delegation of
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 Powers. Further, you had also not submitted OD reports promptly to controlling office. You had also failed to follow-up the matter vigorously with the borrowers for recovery of the amounts outstanding in the CC accounts as well as regularization of overdrawing allowed by you, as a result of which huge amounts were outstanding for recovery in respect of CC accounts bearing No.08/96, 04/97, 06/97 to 09/97, 11/97 to 12/97, 14/97, 01/98 to 02/98 and 05/98 to 06/98. You had thereby exposed the Bank to risk of financial loss. From the foregoing, it is observed that you had violated the guidelines stipulated in the Chapter 3 of the Book of Instructions (advances) (Volume-I) and Chapter VIII of Book of Instructions (Advances) (Volume-II).
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer and thereby you have committed serious acts of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer employees (conduct) Regulations, 1981.
CHARGE NO.6 Articles of Charge
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 You were working as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1997 to 09/07/1999.
During your tenure as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch, you had sanctioned and disbursed overdraft (OD) facilities to borrowers under OD accounts bearing No. 13/97, 2/98, 5/98, 723/98 to 08/98, 10/98 and 1/99 without obtaining financial statements from the borrowers for the previous years and projections for the ensuring year. It is, therefore, evident that you had not assessed need based credit requirement of the borrowers concerned. You had also not ascertained their creditworthiness before sanctioning OD facilities to them. You had also allowed overdrawing in OD account No. 14/96, 06/97, 13/97 and 08/98 of the borrowers in excess of the delegated powers conferred on you in the Booklet on Delegation of Powers without seeking prior permission to that effect from the controlling office.
After allowing overdrawing in OD accounts of the borrowers, you had also not submitted OD reports to the controlling office. You had also not initiated any steps for recovery of the OD loans as well as per regularisation of overdrawing granted by you in OD accounts of the borrowers. As a result of which the said OD accounts have become overdue/sticky. It is, therefore, observed that you had sanctioned and disbursed the above said OD facilities to the borrowers without adhering to the cardinal principles of lending and without bearing in mind the guidelines
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 stipulated in Chapter 3 of Book of Instructions (Advances) (Volume- 1). On account of your failure in adhering to the said principles and guidelines, the OD facilities sanctioned and disbursed by you to the borrowers have posed problems for recovery and thereby exposing the Bank to risk of financial loss.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above said acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of bank officer and thereby you have committed serious misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981.
CHARGE NO. 7Articles of Charge You were working as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1997 to 09/07/1999.
During your tenure as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch, you had allowed temporary overdrawing (TOD) in current account bearing No. 1254, 1258, 1267, 1290, 1300, 1266, 1272, 1296, 1082, 1069, 1114 and 1265 for huge amounts exceeding the
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 delegated power conferred on you in the Booklet on Delegation of Powers. Before allowing such huge amounts of TOD in the above said current accounts, you had neither sought prior permission from the competent authority in Regional Office, Calcutta nor submitted TOD reports promptly to Regional Office, Calcutta for rectification of your action in allowing overdrawing in current accounts of the parties. Since you had granted TOD in excess of the delegated powers conferred on you and that too without seeking prior permission from the competent authority, the TOD reports belatedly submitted by you were not approved by the said authority. Subsequent to allowing huge amounts of TOD in current accounts of the parties, you had not initiated any step in the matter of recovery of the amounts from the parties, as a result of which many of the current accounts had remained unregularised for unduly loan period of time. It is, therefore, evident that you have not only misused your official power in the matter of granting TOD for huge amounts in the current accounts of the parties, but also exposed the Bank to grave financial risk.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above said acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and diligence and acted in a manner
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 unbecoming of bank officer and thereby you have committed serious misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (conduct) Regulations, 1981.
CHARGE No. 8Articles of Charge.
You were working as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1997 to 09/07/1999.
During your tenure as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch, you had sanctioned an LTD (Loan against Term Deposit) for Rs. 14,500/- against the fixed deposit account bearing No. 157/98 under LTD A/c No. 71/98 in contravention of the orders passed by the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which is prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the Bank. Your action in sanctioning the above said LTD is an act which is tantamount to contempt of the Court's order. Apart from the above, you had also sanctioned LTDs under LTD A/c No. 33/98, 34/98, 72/98 and 78/98 despite the mention of 'No premature closure and No LTD' on the relative ledger folios/application form of fixed deposit accounts.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 By your above said acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of bank officer and thereby you have committed serious acts of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981.
CHARGE No. 9Articles of Charge You were working as Branch manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1997 to 09/07/1999.
During your tenure as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch, you had submitted to Regional Office, Calcutta MR-2 certificates (certificates regarding working of the branch) for the month of March 1999, indicating therein that all the books of accounts of the branch were tallied upto March 1999, except 5.8. Operative A/c and interest payable A/c, which were tallied upto January 1999. However, subsequently, it was found that many books of accounts of the branch such as in-operative S.B, A/c, in-operative Current account, operative current account, interest payable a/c, SFDL A/c and stagnant loan A/c were not actually tallied upto March, 1999. Apart from the above, you had also confirmed to Regional Office, Calcutta regarding the tallying of instruments Paid Adjustment A/c despite the fact that the said account
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 of the branch was last tallied upto 30/04/1998, You had also failed to take necessary steps for prompt despatch of instruments paid through Dividend Paid A/c and IPAs to reimbursing branches for reversal of the corresponding entries at Cuttack branch.
It is, therefore, evident that you had misrepresented to Regional Office, Calcutta on the actual position of tallying of books of accounts of the branch and concealed material information deliberately from the notice of the higher authorities. You had also failed to take steps to ensure balancing and tallying of books of accounts of the branch as per the provisions laid down vide Head Office Circulars No. 232/97 dated 11/12/1997, 86/98 dated 30/03/1998, and 195/98 dated 08/09/1998 and therefore displayed negligence in performance on your duties.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above said acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer and thereby you have committed serious acts of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employee' (Conduct) regulations, 1981.
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 CHARGE No. 10 Articles of charge You were working as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1997 to 09/07/1999.
During your tenure as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch, you had initially sanctioned and disbursed an OD limit of Rs. 1.50 lakhs to Shri. Bahgban Chandra Sahoo on 24/07/1998 under OD A/c No. 09/98 against the security of VCC A/c No. 147/98 f Rs. 23,88,485/- belonging to one partnership firm namely M/s. Mishra Zarda Trader: even though you had mentioned in the sanction proceedings register that the advance was granted to the borrower against the security of a vehicle. A scrutiny of the relevant documents of the above said OD A/c reveals that you had sanctioned and disbursed the OD facility to the borrower without obtaining loan application and assets/liabilities statement from the borrower and without preparing any process note to that effect justifying your action in sanctioning loan to the borrower. It is further revealed that the said VCC A/c No. 147/98 was not actually in existence at the time of sanction of OD limit of Rs. 1.50 lakhs to the party on 24/07/1998, but the said VCC A/c was obtained as security subsequently i.e. on 09/09/1998 without obtaining authority letter from all the partners of the firm to that effect. Even though the above said VCC A/c was under lien to OD A/c No. 1/92, the same was
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 again taken as security for OD A/c No. 09/98 without obtaining a letter of continuing security from all the partners of the said firm. You had continuously and indiscriminately allowed overdrawing in OD A/c of the party without seeking prior, permission from the competent authority and without submitting OD reports to the controlling office, as a result of which a debit balance of Rs. 17,24,339/-was outstanding in OD A/c No. 09/98 of the party as on 31/12/1998 as against the sanction limit of Rs. 1.50 lakhs. Subsequently you had enhanced the OD limit to Rs. 16.50 lakhs on 04/01/1999 after obtaining additional security of FD A/c No. 232/98 for Rs. 5.00 lakhs without maintaining requisite margin of 25% so as to convert the overdrawing allowed by you in the account into a regular limit. During March 1999, you had closed the above said VCC A/c and FD A/c, which were under lien to OD A/c No. 9/98 and credited the proceeds of the said deposit accounts to OD A/c No. 1/92 of Mishra Zarda Traders and S.B. A/c No. 3464 of Shri. S.S. Mishra respectively without adjusting the proceeds thereof to OD A/c No. 9/98, as a result of which, the said OD A/c had become totally unsecured and a huge amount of Rs. 20.53 lakhs was outstanding for recovery as on 31/12/1999. You had not taken any steps In the matter of recovery of the loan from the party and thereby exposing the Bank to huge financial loss. Finally, a registered letter sent to the residential address of the party was returned undelivered to the brand and therefore there are reasonable grounds to believe that you had
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 sanctioned the above said OD facility to a non- existent person.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above said acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer and thereby you have committed serious acts of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employee' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981 CHARGE No. 11 Articles of Charge You were working as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1997 to 09/07/1999.
During your tenure as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch, you had sanctioned and disbursed various types of loans to the borrowers under your delegated power or in excess of the delegated power conferred on you in the Booklet on Delegation of Powers. A scrutiny of the relative loan documents obtained by you from the borrowers of the following accounts
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 reveal that most of the documents were either blank/incomplete or partly filled or unstamped.
Secured loan accounts bearing No. 1/98, 4/98, 8/98, 9/98, 10/98, 12/98, 16/98 and 1/99.
OD accounts bearing No. 6/97, 12/97, 13/97, 3/98, 7/98, 8/98, 9/98, 1/98 and 1/99.
CC accounts bearing No. 6/97, 7/97, 8/97, 9/97, 14/97, 1/98, 2/98, 3/98, 4/98, 5/98, 6/98, 7/98 and 1/99.
CTL accounts bearing No. 5/98, 6/98 and 9/98.
PL A/c No. 48/98.
You action in not exercising due care and diligence in the matter of execution of loan documents by the borrowers may deprive the Bank from effecting recovery of loans from them jeopardising interest of the Bank. Further, your action in not obtaining completely filled in loan documents from the borrowers is also prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the Bank.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above said acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and diligence and acted in a manner
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 unbecoming of a bank officer and thereby you have committed serious acts of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employee' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981.
CHARGE No. 12Articles of Charge:
You were working as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1997 to 09/07/1999.
During the general transfer of Branch Managers In 1999, Shri. Ashok Kumar Das, Code No. 10504, Manager, Bhuvaneshwar branch was transferred and posted to work as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch vide Head Office Order No. PER/HRD/3849/99 dated 03/04/1999. While taking over charge of the branch, Shri. Ashok Kumar Das had requested you twice to hand over the loan documents for verification. However, you had not handed over the loan documents to the incoming Branch Manager on the pretext that you were effecting necessary rectification of comments on loans and advances made by the internal inspectors of the Bank and that you would assist him later on in verification of the said loan documents. However, from 11/06/1999 onwards, you had proceeded on leave without informing the same to the incoming Branch Manager of the branch and without handing over the keys of the Almirah to him
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 so as to enable him to verify the loan documents before taking over charge of the branch. Further, in the absence of keys of the Almirah containing loan documents, the branch was put into a lot of difficulties in managing day to day business operations and thereby causing unwarranted inconvenience and problem to the customers as well as staff members of the branch. It is therefore, evident that you had not deliberately handed over keys of the Almirah to the incoming Branch Manager with a view to concealing the irregularities allegedly committed by you in the matter of sanction and disbursement of various loans and advances to the borrowers at the branch.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above said acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer and thereby you have committed serious acts of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employee' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981.CHARGE No. 13
Articles of Charge
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 You were working as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch during the period from 31/05/1997 to 09/07/1999.
During your tenure as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch you had failed to obtain acknowledgement of debits (ADDs) from the borrowers in respect of pronote loan accounts bearing no. 2/88, 23/90, 32/91, 4/92, 39/92, composite term loan accounts bearing no. 4/84, 1/95, 1/96 and secured loan account bearing No: 1/96, as a result of which the Bank was deprived of its right to initiate legal action against the defaulting borrowers for recovery of the Bank's dues and thereby exposing the Bank to risk of financial loss.
The various facts and circumstances of the case pointing out your involvement in the matter are furnished in the statement of imputations of misconduct.
By your above said acts of omissions and commissions, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer and thereby you have committed serious acts of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employee' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981."
13. In the enquiry that was conducted, the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to state his defence and
- 30 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 he was also permitted to cross examine the witnesses of the Bank and adduce his own evidence. Thus, the procedure required to be followed in conducting the enquiry has been complied with.
14. The Enquiry Officer has also assessed the evidence and recorded findings by giving adequate reasons after considering the contentions advanced by the petitioner.
The Appellate Authority has also considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal and has given cogent reasons for dismissing the appeal, thereby, accepting the enquiry report and its acceptance by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and its affirmation by the Appellate Authority as regards the guilt of the petitioner cannot be found fault with.
15. However, as could be seen from the charges and also the enquiry report, the allegations leveled against the petitioner were that he had not followed certain established procedures while granting loans to the
- 31 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 borrowers. In other words, all the allegations were in relation to administrative deficiencies and no allegation was made that the petitioner profited from his misconduct.
16. A perusal of the entire reasoning, when read in totality, would indicate that the allegations against the petitioner were essentially of not following the established procedures and there was no allegation of actual financial loss caused to the Bank. Vague allegations, no doubt, were made in a few charges that the Bank was exposed to financial loss. The Appellate Authority has also merely observed that the Bank was exposed to financial loss and it has not recorded any finding as to the actual quantum of financial loss caused to the Bank. The relevant extract from the order of dismissal in Annexure-Q indicating the vague finding of mere exposure to financial loss is as produced hereunder:
"The above-said irregularities committed by the CSO in the loans/advances portfolio of Cuttack branch are likely to expose the Bank to the risk of incurring huge financial loss. I am, therefore, of the opinion
- 32 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 that the abovesaid acts of misconduct committed by the CSO during his tenure as Branch Manager at Cuttack branch are very serious in nature and the same warrants imposition of deterrent punishment on him. Accordingly, after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct committed by the CSO, I impose the following punishment on Shri Raghuram Palanki, the charge sheeted official..."
17. From a bare perusal of the above finding, it is clear that there is neither any finding recorded by any of the authorities that the Bank has suffered actual financial loss, nor is there an estimation of loss determined in support of this finding.
18. The Appellate Authority has also merely observed that the Bank was exposed to the financial loss and it has not recorded any finding as to the actual quantum of financial loss caused to the Bank.
19. In my view, since there was no actual financial loss caused to the Bank, the punishment of dismissal from service for only administrative lapses and not following established procedures/guidelines, would be grossly
- 33 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003 disproportionate to the charges that had been leveled against the petitioner. It is to be borne in mind that the petitioner has been litigating for the past 22 years. The petitioner, who had rendered nearly 20 years of service, has been out of employment and has already suffered punishment. Further, the petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation, and at this point in time, maintaining the order of dismissal would be inequitable and disproportionately harsh.
20. I am, therefore, of the view that the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect was unjustified, and hence, it would be proper to substitute the said penalty with that of compulsory retirement from service. Accordingly, the impugned orders are modified, and in place of the punishment of dismissal from service and other punishments of withholding increments, an order of compulsory retirement shall stand substituted.
- 34 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35788 WP No. 7462 of 2003
21. Consequently, the benefits to which the petitioner would be entitled to as a result of the substituted punishment of compulsory retirement shall be computed and made over to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK/-
CT: SN