Allahabad High Court
Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj vs Bank Of India And Others on 25 October, 2017
Bench: Bharati Sapru, Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 9.10.2017 Delivered on 25.10.2017 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41237 of 2010 Petitioner :- Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Respondent :- Bank Of India And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- U. K. Saxena,Rajeev K. Srivastava,V. Srivastava,Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Sri Pankaj Bhatia,Gopal Verma,S.C. Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
(Delivered by Hon. Siddharth,J.) Heard Shri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gopal Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition praying for quashing of the appellate order dated 12.4.2010 passed by respondent no.3 and punishment order dated 24.8.2009 passed by the respondent no.2 by which major penalty of removing from service, which shall not be disqualification for future employment has been imposed upon the petitioner by the respondent no.2.
Petitioner's case is that while serving as officer in scale II of the bank in Harsh Nagar Branch , Kanpur and thereafter while working in Lal Bangla Branch,he sanctioned five loans to the borrowers which become bad and he was suspended from service by order dated 19.1.2007 in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry. Charge sheet dated 19.5.2006 was issued to the petitioner and he submitted his reply dated 31.5.2007. The departmental inquiry was commenced on 14.7.2008 and concluded on 7.2.2009.The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 20.4.2009 before the disciplinary authority respondent no.2 and inquiry officer recorded the following findings:-
"In my final words I would like to say that the all the five charges levelled against CSO Mr. N.C. Bharadwaj has been proved conclusively.
He has recommended the proposals of housing loans of Smt. Sadhana Dixit & Sri Vikram Dixit and Mrs. Mamta Mishra and Sri Arisudan Mishra at Harsh Nagar branch and upon his transfer to Lal Bangla branch on 29.6.2006, he sanctioned one more advance to Mr. Vikaram Dixit and Smt. Sadhana Dixit for purchase of vehicle under Autofin Scheme and thereafter two more advances one to Mr. Vikram Dixit and Ramji Shukla and other houseing loan to Smt. Mohini Chaturvedi, Mahesh Chaturvedi & Vinay Chaturvedi these two loans were also brought to the lal Bnagla branch by Mr. Vikram Dixit.
He failed in his duty to club the liabilities of the various person involved in the accounts and did not obtain the status reports on the existing accounts of Harsh Nagar branch. There was visible attempt to conceal these facts regarding existing liabilities of person to whom facilities have been sanctioned at Lal Bangla branch by CSO Mr. N.C. Bharadwaj as Senior Branch Manager.
The entire documentary evidence brought before the enquiry and deposition of various witnesses has broguht horrible story in the light. In his letter to investigating officer Mr. S.P. Chatterjee CSO Mr. N.C. Bharadwaj himself has described the entire episode as a broad day loot.
During the course of enquiry nothing was found to be correct in any of the above fiveloans.Right from the identification of the applicants and verification of their credentials their business activities, there income or income tax returns or Pan cards/identification of proposed guarantor and verification of their credential/verification of proposed vendors and their identity/identification of proposed properties correct and property papers/obtention of the proper legal opinion in respect of the properties. The failure of CSO on these counts has resulted into a truth that obsoletely nothing was found to be correct/reliable.
The securities are not there, the persons taken as borrowers/guarantors are impersonators, the sellers of the properties were inpertionators/fake the title deeds are fake in nature not found registered and registered ones are fake due to execution of impersonators.
The defence has not brought any solid documents/witnesses before the enquiry to disprove the charge or negate the contents of the various documentary evidences produced. The deposition of the various witnesses during the cross examination of the management witnesses or the defence witnesses , the defence mainly focused on certain set questions such as "Who was handling the loan applications, working in the credit department, there was office order registrar or not , what written in Audit Report/SAR submitted by branches/what was the mode of communication in the branch.What was the status of account on various dates at Harsh Nagar branch when CSO considered the loan application at Lal Bangla branch was not proper and his details were not correctly recorded in the related documents.
The fact remains that the loan were granted to the persons brought by the fraudstar Mr. Vikram Dixit and every thing or every person brought by him be it credentials/persons/project name anything was accepted on the face value without verifications/identifications of the same. The reports submitted by inspecting official Mr. R.C. Jatav in two accounts were eye openers but the CSO thought it fit to sideline the same by making his own assessment and proceeded with sanctioning of futher advances which unfortunately turned out to be a fiasco.
While considering all the five accounts the CSO Mr. N.C. Bharadwaj has not observed the guidelines of the HO circular 99/66 dated 21.7.2005 produced before the enquiry as ME-33 full set in which the role and responsibilities of the recommending officials and sanctioning authority at branch level have been clearly defined.
At no point any deviation was neither advised nor the acceptability of the deviation was commented upon.
The compliance of the HO cir no. 97/12 dated 10.04.03(ME-13) HO cir. No 99/103dated 03.10.05 (ME-14) and HO cir. no. 99/144 dated 20.12.2005 were not complied with on the relevant junctures.
There was not attempt made to carry out the post sanction inspection and the very fist inspection made by Sri S.R. Yadav blew the lid off and all the forgeries and frauds committed were surfaced."
The second show cause notice dated 13.7.2009 was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority to submit his reply against the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Petitioner submitted his reply on 29.7.2009 to the same and after consideration of the same the punishment order dated 24.8.2009 was passed by the respondent no.2 awarding major penalty of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment in terms of Regulation 4(1) of the Bank of India Officers Employees(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.
Petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 24.8.2009 by means of an appeal before respondent no.3 which was dismissed by appellate authority by his order dated 12.4.2010.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner bringing on record the Inter Office Memorandum dated 6.6.2009 sent by the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, to the Chief Vigilance Officer & General Manager as Annexure S.A-1 it has been stated that disciplinary authority recommended punishment of only reduction to a lower stage in time scale but the Chief Vigilance Officer & General Manager recommended imposition of penalty for removal from bank services by the Inter Office Memorandum dated 7.7.2009 attach to annexure S.A.2.
Counter affidavit has been on behalf of the respondent stating that the petitioner accommodated certain persons and recommended proposal of housing loan. It is true to state that Sri V.K. Srivastava verified the contents of the application submitted by the borrower and also submitted his brief report but the recommendation prepared in the hand writing of the petitioner clearly reveals something more than that what was submitted by Shri D.K. Srivastava. This aspect clearly confirms that the petitioner had more knowledge about the borrowers than Mr. D.K. Srivastava. In respect of all accounts, processed/recommended by him at Harsh Nagar branch the recommendation of same valuer was obtained despite the fact that no of architects/valuers were on Bank's approved panel. It clearly suggests that favourable valuation report was obtained with a view to justify recommendation/sanction of loan to undeserving borrower. The petitioner was incharge of credit and was fully responsible to ensure the verification of credentials of the owner of the property including the possession thereon and also of cross checking of the presanction report submitted by Mr. D.K. Srivastava which was too precise that such vital information were missing in his report. The facts revealed that on the basis of such incomplete and incorrect information the loan was sanctioned by Shri V.K. Srivastava, the then Sr. Branch Manager upon the recommendation of the petitioner. It does not justify the contention to absolve him from the duties performed by him as a recommending authority of Harsh Nagar Branch. There are certain other aspects which has to be looked into while taking a credit decision with regard to new borrower for example annual income, security repayment capacity of the borrower, etc. The document relied by the petitioner (Circular dated 21.7.2005) clearly states that recommending authority shall be responsible for cross checking each and every important aspect of the proposal stated therein and he shall specifically express his views upon acceptability of the proponents and the proposal being within the framework of the policy guidelines of the bank or RBL Govt. of the India etc. and should also adhere to the norms prescribed in this regard. It is further provided that the recommending authority should clearly indicate the deviations, if any, in the prescribed norms/procedures set up in this regard. The pre-sanction inspection report was prepared by Shri D.K. Srivastava but it was not signed by any official of the bank. As a recommending Authority at Harsh Nagar Branch, the petitioner was fully responsible while acting as recommending authority to ensure that proper pre-sanction inspection was carried out before making the recommendation of the loan and moreover he must have satisfied himself with the antecedents of the guarantor/borrower. Instead the petitioner relied upon the pre-sanction inspection report which was prepared by Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh(CTO).
Mr. Vikram Dixit & Mrs. Sadhana Dixit were existing borrower of Harsh Nagar Branch and Mr. Dixit was borrower/guarantor in different loan account s sanctioned by the branch and therefore it was incumbent upon the petitioner while performing his duties as an officer of the bank to obtain status report of the borrowers/guarantors from Harsh Nagar branch which was not done by the petitioner and moreover the liabilities of the borrowers or guarantors have neither clubbed nor shown in the borrowers proposal for Autofin loan. If he had done so, the proposal in question could not have fallen under his delegated authority. As regards verification done by Mr. R.C. Jatav, the pre-sanction inspection report of Shri Jatav should have been necessarily cross verified by the petitioner which was not done by him. The petitioner has not made out any good ground for interference by this Court.
The respondent-bank has filed supplementary counter affidavit denying that punishment order dated 24.8.2009 was passed by the Chief Vigilance Officer /General Manager. It has been stated that the Chief Vigilance Officer is a counseling authority to determine and impart advice in the Vigilance matter on looking into gravity of the misconduct proved against the delinquent employee as per guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission and disciplinary authority has right to disagree with the same,therefore, petitioner cannot get any benefit regarding this aspect of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has accepted the recommendation for sanction of loan and sanctioned the loan there was no fault on his part in case the loan become bad. The inquiry officer has recorded clear finding in this regard that petitioner has not observed guidelines of the Head Office Circular no. 99/66 dated 21.7.2005 in which the role and responsibilities of the recommending officer and sanctioning authority at branch level has been clearly defined. This being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this court.The appellate authority has also considered the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and has recorded the finding that appellant is trying to condone his own lapses by citing such non-acceptable propositions.
The second argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that Inter Office Memorandum brought on record as annexure- S.A.-1 and 2 it was clear that initially the punishment proposed to him was reduction of "lower stage in time scale" which was changed to compulsory retirement and then at the behest Chief Vigilance Officer/General Manager of the Bank the punishment of removal from the service was imposed upon him.
Counsel for the respondent has relied upon his counter affidavit and has stated that the petitioner cannot get benefit of the Inter Office memorandum which were exchanged between the disciplinary authority and Chief Vigilance Officer/General Manager since they are in the nature of consultation regarding punishment to be awarded to the petitioner on the basis of findings of the inquiry officer and petitioner has only challenged the punishment order before the appellate authority and before this court.
In our considered opinion inter office memorandum do not conform to the definition of punishment order and the recommendation therein are only tentative and advisory in nature are not conclusive regarding the punishment awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, the arguments of the petitioner has no substance and deserves to be turned down. The petitioner has not been able to establish that procedure of inquiry adopted by the inquiry officer was bad or there is any perversity in the finding recorded by the inquiry officer, like finding being based on inadmissible documents or no material on record, suspicion conjectures and surmises. The findings of the inquiry officer are finding of fact and appellate authority has considered each and every finding of the inquiry officer with reference to the material on record by reasoned and speaking order as required by the Apex Court in the case Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others vs. Madhusudan Rao (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 469, Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Laksmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & others, (2009) 4 Superem Court Cases 240 and Pradhu Dayal Grover's case (1995) 6 SSC 279.
It is well settled that High Court can interfere with the orders passed in departmental proceedings to correct the errors of law or fundamental procedural requirement, which may lead to manifest injustice and can interfere with the impugned orders in "exceptional circumstances" as held in Union of India Vs. Parma Nanda, AIR 1989 SC 1185;State Bank of India Vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow (1994) 2 SCC 537; Transport Commissioner, Madras Vs. A. Radha Krishana Moorthy(1995) 1 SCC 332;State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, AIR 1996 SC 736; Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bhola Nath Singh, AIR 1997 SC1908;Union of India Vs. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (2002)1 SCC,188; Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank (2003) SCC583.
In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Subramaniam, AIR 1996 SC 1232, the Apex Court has held that as the High Court has power of judicial review of the administrative action on complaint relating to service conditions of the employee, it is within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the charge stood proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules of evidence have no application in the disciplinary proceedings and the authority is to consider the material on record. In judicial review, the court has no power to trench on the material on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive on its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion, which the authority reaches, is necessarily correct in the view of the Court or the tribunal. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, the court or the tribunal is devoid of power to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proved charges. The only consideration the court/tribunal has in its judicial review, is to consider weather the conclusion is based on the evidence on record that support the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any such finding which is not based on the evidence on record. Similar view has been taken in the case of General Court Martial Vs. Anil Tej Singh Dhaliwal, AIR 1998, SC 983, Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC635 and R.S. Saini Vs. State of Punjab(1999) 8 SCC, 90; High Court of Madras Vs. K. Muthu Kumerswamy (2014) 16 SCC 555; Prem Nath Bali vs. High Court of Delhi (2015) SCC, 415.
It may be mentioned that it has been repeatedly been held by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court that in a Bank the highest standards of integrity and devotion to duty have to be maintained by employees because a Bank runs on public confidence vide Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan, (1998) 4 SCC 310; Sudhir Singh v. District Co-operative Bank, 2003 ALJ 1213; Ram Pratap Sonkar v. Allahabad Bank, 2000 ALJ 2510; K.K. Singh v. Gomti Gramin Bank, 2002 ALJ 480; In fact greater integrity and devotion to duty is required from Bank employees as compared to the employees of other organisations vide V.K. Bahadur V. State Bank of India, 2000 (4) ESC 796. Any leniency shown in such matters would be wholly uncalled for vide Disciplinary Authority v. N.B. Patnaik, 1996 (9) SCC 69.
In fact in State Bank of India V. T.J. Paul JT 1999(3) SC 385, the Supreme Court held that in the case of Bank employees even if there was no actual loss to the Bank, the employee could be punished for negligence. Hence the argument of the petitioner on that account also fails.
In view of the above legal position, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned punishment and appellate orders.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.10.2017 Atul kr. sri.