K. RAJA RAO Vs. SYNDICATE BANK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in No. 41/PD -IRD/DA -7 dated 24.4.90 Annexure -E to the Writ Petition, in which order the order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Further the petitioner has sought for a direction to the first respondent Bank to reinstate the petitioner in his post with all consequential benefits, urging the following facts and legal contentions.

(2.) IT is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Farm Representative and he has reported for duty on 1.4.1980 at Staff Training College, Udupi. Initially the appointment was for a period of 2 years on Probation. After successful completion of his Probationary Period, his services were confirmed by the first respondent Bank.

(3.) IT is also further stated that prior to initiation of the Disciplinary Proceedings, the Vigilance Officer has conducted a preliminary enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is stated by the learned Counsel, Mr. S.V. Shastry that in the preliminary enquiry the vigilance Officer has recorded the statement of persons whose names are referred to in the charge sheet at Annexure -B, on the basis of which the charges were framed and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Further, it is stated that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with the Regulations referred to above, and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of dismissal was not preceded by a valid and legal enquiry as required in law. The learned Counsel submits that the order of dismissal has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and hence both the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. The learned Counsel elaborating his submissions further submits that in the enquiry, the CB1 Investigation Officer, who is a Police Officer, was appointed as a Presenting Officer to present the case on behalf of the 3rd respondent Management. His presence in the enquiry and conduct of enquiry proceedings against the petitioner has prejudiced his case. Therefore the conduct of enquiry proceedings and the order of removal passed by the disciplinary Authority against the petitioner is vitiated. Further, the learned Counsel submits that the statements of persons on which basis the Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the 3rd respondent Management, the contents of the documents are not proved in the enquiry proceedings. On the other hand, the statements recorded by the Presenting Officer in the course of preliminary enquiry were put to the witnesses, who were examined as witnesses on behalf of the 3rd respondent Management and those documents were got marked as Management documents. Those documents are being relied upon by the enquiry officer in support of the findings recorded by him. The said findings have been accepted in totality by the Disciplinary Authority without applying his mind to the facts of the case and law on the question. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that conduct of enquiry is not in accordance with the Regulations, law laid down in this regard and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Therefore the order of removal and the Appellate Authority's order are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel further submits that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings in the absence of any complaint is bad in law. Therefore, the order of removal is illegal, void and unsustainable in law. It is also further contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner vide Annexure -A are not supported by any documents in as much as demanding the money and accepting the same by the petitioner from the loans as alleged. Neither the so called loans nor other witnesses produced any documents to substantiate the said charges against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the report which has been termed as a follow up report, none of the witnesses were party to the said follow -up report. It is also further contended that before granting the loan to a customer it is incumbent on the part of the sanctioning authority to get some documents on which basis reliance could be placed in sanctioning the loan. In the instant case, the receipt issued by a party to a prospective loanee is the basis on which loan was sanctioned or released. The petitioner being a Farm Representative, the poor agriculturists approached him for their guidance to obtain the loan from the Bank. He has advised such persons regarding the procedure to be followed by them before granting the loan. Therefore, it cannot be said that at his instance a receipt has been obtained and further the loan for digging the well concerned are sanctioned on a stagewise basis and not at a stretch and further the release of the loan for the purpose of putting cattle shed as well as purchase of milk cows. The petitioner being a Farm Representative submitted his follow -up report. Depending upon his inspection and verification made with reference to the persons who have approached him, without there being a cross verification by any higher officers of the Bank and solely on the basis of the statement said to have been made by a particular individual, the disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioner. It is also further alleged that the CBI Officer was behind the back of the petitioner in securing the statements of the loans. Contents of the statements were not made known either to the petitioner or to any body till the report was served on him at the time of enquiry. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer is not proper. The enquiry officer without applying his mind and not discharging his statutory duties while conducting enquiry proceedings as he has taken the statements of the witnesses which were recorded in the preliminary enquiry on record and accepted the same without proving the contents of the same. Those statements were recorded by the CBI Officer behind the back of the petitioner, by marking and exhibiting them as Management documents, even though the witnesses have not spoken to the contents of the statements. Therefore the enquiry officer has not followed the proper procedure required in law.