Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The common facts are that the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 6382/2015, 6384/2015 & 6385/2015 were part of a Loan Committee, which recommended the enhancement of bank guarantee from Rs. 10 Crores to Rs. 20 Crores in respect of one M/s. Zoom Developers Private Ltd. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 6383/2015 and 7298/2015, while working as Branch Manager/General Manager, on the recommendations of the Loan Committee, sanctioned enhancement of bank guarantee limit from Rs. 10 Crores to Rs. 20 Crores to the said M/s. Zoom Developers Private Ltd.

4. It is noted that M/s. Zoom Developers Private Ltd. defaulted and lending became sticky leading to litigation. The respondent bank issued show cause notice(s) to all the petitioners on September 28, 2013, asking for their comments on the commission of irregularities committed by them while recommending/sanctioning the enhancement of bank guarantee from Rs. 10 Crores to Rs. 20 Crores in respect of M/s. Zoom Developers Private Ltd. The petitioners except the petitioner in W.P.(C) 6383/2015, submitted their comments to the show cause notice in the month of November/December, 2013. It is noted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) 6383/2015 could not able to submit his comments as he was not given the requisite documents he had sought for. Be that as it may, the petitioners were issued charge sheets on December 26, 2014 in respect of credit extended to M/s. Zoom Developers Private Ltd. It is the common ground of all the petitioners in reply to the charge sheet, apart from the merit of the charge, that the event complained about, happened more than four years before the date of charge sheet, the departmental proceedings cannot be initiated after retirement. It is their case that despite pointing the illegality, the respondent bank did not withdraw the charge sheets issued to them, instead, appointed Enquiry Officer in all the cases. When these writ petitions were listed before this Court on July 7, 2015, except in W.P.(C) 7298/2015, this Court noting that the Enquiry Officer has fixed the date of proceeding as July 8, 2015, directed the Enquiry Officer to defer the proceedings after the next date of hearing i.e. August 18, 2015.

5. Pleadings are complete.

6. The only submission made by Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that in view of the 3rd Proviso to Regulation 48(1), the subject matter of the charge sheet being enhancement of the bank guarantee from Rs. 10 Crores to Rs. 20 Crores in respect of M/s. Zoom Developers Private Ltd. on February 6, 2009, which is a date/event beyond four years of the date of issuance of charge sheets to the petitioners on December 26, 2014, no departmental proceedings could have been initiated against them. In this regard, he would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases reported as 1996 (9) SCC 395, State of U.P. and Anr. Vs. Shri Krishna Pandey and 2013 (6) SCC 515, Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and Ors. to contend that the Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners are determining factors as to whether a departmental enquiry can be held against the petitioners, who stood retired after reaching the age of superannuation or by taking voluntary retirement. During the course of the submission, Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court in the case reported as 2014 (140) DRJ 162 Amarjit Singh Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank, wherein, this Court has held that, when the charge sheet has been issued after the retirement, there cannot be valid departmental proceedings on the basis of only issuance of show cause notice as there is no rule in the bank that departmental proceedings are deemed to have commenced on issuance of show cause notice and when a charge sheet has been issued after retirement of the employee. I have been informed that the judgment in the case of Amarjit Singh (supra) is under challenge before the Division Bench in LPA No. 774/2014. Since, he has not urged this point, it may not be necessary for me to go into that issue. The issue raised is whether the limitation of four years would be applicable to the facts.