Orissa High Court
Devidutta Panigrahi vs State Of Orissa ..... Opp. Party on 23 May, 2024
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 3093 of 2024
Devidutta Panigrahi ..... Petitioner
Mr. Jagannath Pattnaik, Sr. Advocate
along with
Mr. B. S. Rayaguru, Adv.
Vs.
State of Orissa ..... Opp. Party
Mr. G.N. Rout, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
23.05.2024 (Through hybrid mode) Order No.
04.
1. This application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed in connection with EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. case No. 27 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. case No. 127 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack under Section 420,406,467,468,471,120-B of the IPC, read with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act against the petitioner, who was the ex-branch Manager of Bhadreswar Branch, Central Bank of India and Mr. Debidutta Panigrahi, who was Agricultural Finance Officer of Bhadreswar Branch and others.
Page 1 of 7
2. This matter has been listed before me as BLAPL No. 929 of 2024 filed by co-accused Dambarudhar Nayak had been disposed of vide order dated 21.02.2024 granting him liberty to move for bail afresh after completion of the investigation.
3. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on 04.01.2024 by the learned P.O., DC OPID Act, Cuttack.
4. The prosecution allegations in brief against the petitioner is that on 05.12.2023 at about 5.30 P.M., the informant, namely one Anadi Biswas, son of Adhir Biswas who is serving as Regional Head at Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar lodged a written report before the S.P., Economic Offices Wing, Odisha, BBSR alleging therein that one Dambarudhar Nayak was serving as the Branch Manager of Bhadreswar Branch, Cuttack for the period from 18.05.2015 to 13.04.2018 and the present petitioner was serving as the Agricultural Finance Officer of the said branch for the period from 25.08.2016 to 11.11.2018. The duty of the petitioner as Agricultural Finance Officer is primarily to scrutinize agricultural loan applications and related documents, make necessary field verification and recommend for sanction of loan to the agriculturists as per bank norms. The duty of the Branch Manager is primarily to sanction loan under delegated power following bank norms on the Page 2 of 7 basis of the recommendations of the recommending officials. Dambarudhar Nayak was allotted Emplyee Code No. 065088, whereas the present petitioner was allotted Employee Code No. 131349 for logging into core banking solutions and to discharge their duties in the computerized system of bank.
It is alleged that upon receipt of a complaint dated 29.10.2020 from one Amulya Kumar Sethi in respect of various fraudulent transactions at Bhadreswar Branch during the tenure of Dambarudhar Nayak in the capacity of Branch Manager and the present petitioner in the capacity of Agricultural Finance Office, internal investigation of the matter as per the extant norms of bank was conducted and accordingly, the investigating officers upon completion of process of investigation, have submitted their investigation report dated 27.04.2021, wherein it is confirmed that a number of fraudulent transactions have been taken place amounting to Rs.85,49,941/- in 68 Central Kishan Credit Card (CKCC) accounts, Rs.1,49,18,103/- in 24 Term Loan accounts, diversion of subsidy amounting to Rs.15,60,000/- in 08 borrowers of Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) Scheme and Rs.83,24,558.03/- towards 114 irregular transactions in bank profit and loss accounts, thus aggregating to Rs.3,33,52,602.03/-. Page 3 of 7
It is further alleged that the sanction of 68 loans were made on the basis of fake KYC/ Land documents without verifying KYC documents as well as land records and the enhancement of limit was done without obtaining request application and requisite documents. The disbursement of loan amount was made in Savings Accounts and thereafter, siphoning of funds was done through cash and transfer of amount in unrelated 3rd party accounts without any authentication. Similarly, 24 Term Loans were sanctioned on the basis of fake KYC documents so also without verifying KYC documents and disbursement was made in Savings Account thereby siphoning the finds through cash and transfer of amount in unrelated 3rd party accounts through transfer/ RTGS/ NEFT without any authentication.
It is also alleged that there was fraudulent diversion of Prime Ministers Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) subsidy to 3rd party accounts of other branches of Central Bank and due to such fraudulent diversion huge amount of Government subsidy to the tune of Rs. 15,60,000/- is wrongfully diverted causing loss to the bank and the bank officials have acted dishonestly in gross violation of the norms of the bank. It is also mentioned in the written report that during internal investigation of bank, it appeared that 114 numbers Page 4 of 7 of irregular and unauthorized transactions have been made in banks profit and loss account causing loss to a tune of Rs.83,24,558.03/- to the bank. It is clearly apparent that the bank officials in connivance with each other have caused wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.3,33,52,602.03/- in total by diversion of funds in gross violation of norms of the bank. It is also alleged that the bank officials in connivance with each other have deliberately, willfully and intentionally defrauded the bank by diverting the funds. Basing on the aforesaid information, the S.P., EOW CIDCB, BBSR registered the case and proceeded with investigation.
5. Mr. Jaganath Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Agricultural Finance Officer during the time of occurrence at Bhadreswar Branch and he was the only recommending authority and had no role to play in sanction of loan and subsidy which power was available with the Branch Manager who is the sanctioning authority and the petitioner was on probation at that time. He further submits that departmental enquiry on 30.09.2021 had been started against him and final order has been passed reducing him to a lower stage by two increments in the time scale of pay for two years, with Page 5 of 7 further directions that the officer will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period of the reduction will not have effect of postponing the future increments of his pay" in terms of Regulation 4 (f) of Central bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. He submits that he is in custody 09.12.2023 and investigation in the case is over and the subsidy has been transferred to other accounts which have been done by the Branch Manager. He further submits that the investigation in respect of the present petitioner has been completed for which no useful purpose will be served by detaining him further in jail custody.
6. Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that the present petitioner was working as an Agricultural Officer of the Bank and was the verifying authority of documents and on his recommendation, sanction is given. He submits that only on the recommendation of the petitioner, sanction could have been granted by the Branch Manager and without the recommendation of the petitioner, the Branch Manager cannot sanction loan and subsidy. He further submits that the petitioner has recommended 114 agricultural loans, illegal transactions in which either the loanees were not available or necessary documents were Page 6 of 7 not available. The loanees (Hrusikesh Mallik, Biswanath Mallik and Ratan Bahaduri) who have been examined during investigation have stated that some of the photographs and signatures do not belong to them and there has been manipulation by the present petitioner. He does not dispute that investigation chargesheet dated 02.03.2024 has been submitted on 31.03.2024 keeping investigation open under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. He files the case diary.
7. Hearing is concluded.
8. Order is reserved.
(Savitri Ratho) Judge puspa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 24-May-2024 19:32:53 Page 7 of 7