CANARA BANK Vs. ANANTHA RANGACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -Canara Bank aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2011 passed in W.P.No.20503/2007 presented the above writ appeal.

(2.) THE respondent while working as a Senior Manager at Santheshivara Branch, on 30.4.2004 AGM, RO, Hassan, visited the said Santheshivara Branch, and noticed serious discrepancies in respect of sanction of housing and agricultural loans and it was observed that respondent had sanctioned limits to earlier NPA/LPD parties and disbursed the entire loan amount to each one of them within a short span thereby the respondent had flouted the related guidelines of the Bank. Arising out of the report of the AGM, RO, Hassan, the respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and article of charges were framed on 14.6.2005 and the same was served upon the respondent herein seeking his explanation. On 8.7.2005 he had submitted his explanation. The disciplinary authority being dissatisfied with the explanation of the respondent proceeded to hold an enquiry by appointing an Inquiring authority. On 27.2.2006 the Inquiring Officer prepared and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority after receipt of the Inquiring Officer's finding -report sought explanation of the respondent on the findings of the Inquiring authority. The respondent submitted his submission on 27.3.2006.

(3.) THE appellant aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge filed this appeal contending that the learned single Judge has erred in setting aside the punishment imposed on the respondent on the ground that suit for recovery has been filed in few accounts and as such it cannot be said that the appellant's bank has suffered a loss, unless the suit before the civil Court attains finality. When the irregularities, lapses committed by the respondent are proved in the departmental enquiry quashing of punishment order amounts to perversity. It was further contended that High Court is not a Court of appeal so as to reappreciate the evidence, since the respondent has committed grave misconduct and having regard to the gravity of the charge, the penalty imposed is in order and it is not disproportionate as held by the learned single Judge.