B VEERSENA INDRA S/O (LATE) SHRIDHAR INDRA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE AT MANIPAL REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE AT MANIPAL REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), GENERAL MANAGER (P) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY SYNDICAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 14498/2006 dated 14th June 2011, wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder : The appellant was appointed by the respondent - Bank as a Clerk in the year 1975. He was promoted to the post of Branch Manager. Between 16.06.2001 and 24.05.2003 he was working as Branch Manager at Mahalka Branch. During which period, the appellant had sanctioned a loan in contravention of the Banking Lending Norms, without proper pre -sanction appraisal of the credit proposals, without ensuring end use of the funds lent and unduly accommodating the parties concerned, exposing the Bank's huge funds to the risk of loss and it has been also alleged that in the process, he also accepted illegal gratification for sanctioning the loans and placed on record false follow -up reports to suppress his misdeeds and thereby falsified the Bank's records. On the ground that he has failed to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of an Officer of the Bank, a Charge Memo was issued and accordingly, an enquiry was conducted.

(2.) THE Management examined several witnesses and relied upon 198 documents. By way of defence, the appellant relied upon 47 documents. The Inquiry Officer after submitted the report holding that the charges levelled against the appellant are proved by the Presiding Officer. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority after hearing the appellant, came to the conclusion that during a short period of two years he had sanctioned loan to 974 loanees, out of which the Bank concerned with 30 loans wherein there is a fragrant violation of the Banking Norms and allegations of receipt of illegal gratification. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the appellant from the services. Challenging the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which appeal also came to be dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the writ petition was filed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge after considering each and every arguments advanced by the appellant also came to the conclusion that he cannot interfere with the order of dismissal when the charges levelled against the appellant are proved to be fair and proper. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) WE have examined the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the learned Single Judge have categorically stated that if really the appellant had not violated the Banking Rules and that the loanees had utilised the loan borrowed by them for the purpose for which it was lent, the appellant was not prevented from examining those loanees as defence witnesses and if such loanees had been examined by the appellant there was an occasion for the Bank to cross -examine such witnesses. Due to non -examination of those loanees merely based on the affidavits of such persons, the charges levelled against the appellant cannot be exonerated. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority held that the loan in fact has not been disbursed to the loanees but it is misutilised by the appellant.