ANIL GILURKER Vs. BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These are appeals against the order dated 28.04.2010 of the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 57 of 2010 and Writ Appeal No. 82 of 2010.

(3.) The facts very briefly are that on 03.05.1984 the Appellant was appointed as a Branch Manager in the Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank by way of direct recruitment and he successfully completed the period of probation. While he was working on the post of Branch Manager in Branch Patewa, he sanctioned and distributed loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units under the Integrated Gram Development Programme. The disciplinary authority placed the Appellant under suspension and issued a charge-sheet dated 31.01.1989 against him for misconduct punishable under Regulation 30(1) of the Staff Service Regulations. In the charge-sheet, it was alleged that the Appellant sanctioned and distributed loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units in a very short period of time, but had not in fact disbursed the entire loan amount to the borrowers and part of the loan amount was misappropriated by him. The Appellant was asked to submit his written defence in reply to the charges. On 11.02.1989, the Appellant submitted his written defence denying the allegations made in the charge-sheet. An Inquiry Officer enquired into the charges against the Appellant and submitted his report with a finding that the witnesses produced by the Bank had not said that what was actually advanced was less than the loan amount, and although there were some serious irregularities, the charge of financial corruption against the Appellant had not been proved. The disciplinary authority in his order dated 10.09.1991 disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held that the charge of financial corruption against the Appellant had been proved and that the Appellant had not only violated the Rules of the Bank, but had also tried to cause financial loss to the Bank and by abusing his position, had lowered down the reputation of the Bank. In the order dated 10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority proposed to impose the punishment of removal of the Appellant along with forfeiture of the contribution of the Bank to the Provident Fund of the Appellant under Section 50(1) of the Staff Regulations. By the order dated 10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority directed that a copy of the order and report of the Inquiry Officer be sent to the Appellant to show-cause why he should not be punished as proposed. On 18.09.1991, the Appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice and on 25.11.1991, the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority, but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority.