Karnataka High Court
Sri K Diwakar Naik vs The General Manager on 26 November, 2013
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
-1-
WP Nos.38452-38453 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION Nos.38452-38453 OF 2013 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SRI K. DIWAKAR NAIK
S/O LATE LACHMA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
DOOR No.566A/1, SHARADA NILAYA
NEAR H.K.R CIRCLE COLLEGE ROAD
NITTUVALLI NEW EXTN
DAVANAGERE-577004
... PETITIONER
(BY MISS. AKHILA H.K. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K. DIWAKARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SYNDICATE BANK H.O.,
MANIPAL-576104
2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
SYNDICATE BANK, HEAD OFFICE
MANIPAL-576104
... RESPONDENTS
WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (P), SYNDICATE BANK, I.E. R-2
HEREIN DT.9.11.2012 VIDE ANNX-E AND ORDER OF THE
GENERAL MANAGER (P), SYNDICATE BANK, I.E. THE R-1
HEREIN DT.28.3.2013 VIDE ANNX-G COMPULSORILY
RETIRING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICES.
WPs COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP Nos.38452-38453 of 2013
ORDER
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
These writ petitions are by a former Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank and are directed against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 09.11.2012 (Annexure-E) directing his compulsory retirement from service and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure-G) wherein the order of the Disciplinary Authority is confirmed. The operative portion of the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 09.11.2012 reads as follows:
"ORDER For breach of Regulation No.3(1) read with Reg.No.24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, Sri K Divakar Naik be and is hereby Compulsorily Retired from the service of the Bank with immediate effect.
It is further ordered that the period of his suspension is treated as "Not on Duty" and he is not entitled for any back wages/notional increments/consequential benefits whatsoever during the period of his suspension other than what has been paid to him as subsistence allowance.. .............................."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged two contentions in support of the writ petitions namely that the petitioner received the communication -3- WP Nos.38452-38453 of 2013 withdrawing the sanctioning powers belatedly i.e. only on 03.12.2010 as there was no courier service to the branch. The other contention is that the petitioner had sanctioned all the loans bonafide.
3. It is relevant to refer to the following reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority in its order dated 09.11.2012 (Annexure-E):
"The acts for which Sri K Divakar Naik has been held guilty constitute misconduct within the meaning of Regulation No.3(1) read with Regulation No.24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 which invites imposition of appropriate penalty on him. Public servants and more so the Bank employees are required to be sincere and devoted towards the interest of the employer in discharge of their duties as they deal with public money held in trust. Evidence brought on record indicate that the CSOE indulged in lending Bank's money in gross violation of the guidelines laid down by the Bank and in utter disregard to safety/security of the Bank's funds. He sanctioned the loans without ensuring proper pre-sanction appraisal, without ensuring repayment capacity of the borrowers and facilitated its misuse by his failure to ensure end utilization. He caused opening of a Current A/c in the name of M/s Mouneshwara Enterprises, credited the proceeds of loans sanctioned for pipe line laying, fencing, jungle clearance etc to the said account and failed to ensure end use by facilitating re-credit of the loan proceeds to the borrowers' account. He sanctioned 83 loans under Bank's Syndvyapar Scheme aggregating to `75.50 lakh to the non- existing units/business, without proper pre- sanction appraisal; without ensuring repayment -4- WP Nos.38452-38453 of 2013 capacity of the borrower and without obtaining mortgage of property as collateral security thereby exposed the Bank to substantial risk of loss as a number of loan accounts have become NPA without any security to fall back upon. He unduly accommodated Sri B R Krishna Naik, Sri Manjya Naik and Sri K Hanumanthappa by sanctioning multiple credit facilities for their non-existing business entities. Even after withdrawal of his sanctioning powers by RO: Bellary, the CSOE sanctioned 41 loans aggregating to `47.95 lakh by backdating his sanction in defiance/violation of RO instructions. Thus, the CSOE exhibited absolute lack of integrity and honesty and acted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. Such employees with questionable honesty / integrity should have no right to continue in a public financial institution like Bank lest trust reposed by the public in the Banking system will be lost and the image as well as business interest of the Bank will be greatly hampered. The Bank has lost trust in him."
(underlining supplied) It is also relevant to refer to the following reasoning of the Appellate Authority in its order dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure-G):
"Regarding the Appellant's contention that he had processed those credit proposals for the business development of the branch and at that time he might have done minor lapses, it is not fair on his part to lend public money indiscreetly by violating the credit norms of the Bank in the guise of improving the business. He himself states in his written submission Dt.10.09.2012 that he sanctioned as much as 384 loans amounting to `283.28 lakh from June 2010 to November 2010 which indicates that he indulged in sanction of loans without proper appraisal, without ensuring existence of business / end use of loan proceeds, without assessing the repayment capacity of the -5- WP Nos.38452-38453 of 2013 borrowers and in gross violation of Bank's guidelines."
4. With regard to the first contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly observed as follows:
"The CSOE has contended that RO: Bellary letter No.1773 dated 25.11.2010 conveying the suspension of his sanctioning powers was received by him on 03.12.2010. He has stated that though the envelope was received by one of the staff member from courier office in Harihar on 01.12.2010 but the same was handed over to him on 03.12.2010. However, his contention lacks merit as the records indicate that even after receiving RO letter informing him of the withdrawal/suspension of his sanctioning powers, the CSOE sanctioned further loans by backdating the sanction in violation/defiance of RO instructions."
(underlining supplied) I find no error in the above reasoning. As could be seen from the observations made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the petitioner sanctioned a large number of loans in gross violation of the guidelines laid down by the Bank evidencing absolute lack of integrity and honesty. Therefore, the second contention that the sanctioning of loans was bonafide is also rejected.
-6-
WP Nos.38452-38453 of 2013
5. The findings recorded by both the authorities are based on a proper consideration of the evidence on record and hence both the orders are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.
Petitions dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH