A P KAPUR Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Succinctly stated, the Charges against the Petitioner are that he granted overdrafts/loans/financial arrangements which exceeded his specific authorization. It is not in dispute that the Bank did not suffer any pecuniary loss because of these transactions. It appears that the Enquiry Officer has returned a finding that the integrity of the Petitioner cannot be doubted. Even, in these circumstances, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Anr. v. Munna Lal Jain, JT 2005 (1) SC 70 militate against the arguments put forward on behalf of the Petitioner. In the said Judgment, it has been observed that:-

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner next contends that an oral authorization had been granted to the Petitioner by Shri J.J.Aggarwal, Respondent No.3, who has not appeared as a witness and, therefore, the Petitioner has lost an opportunity to conduct his defence fully. Even if the fact that Shri Aggarwal was the Petitioner's witness is glossed over it cannot be ignored that there was no written authorization for the transaction. At best it would have been established that Shri Aggarwal was also a privy and culpable for the grant of financial facilities beyond the Authority of the Petitioner. I find no irregularity warranting the interference of this Court in these circumstances.

(3.) It has also been contended that the Petitioner had been appointed by the Board of Directors of the Respondent-Bank. I have perused the Letter of Appointment which has been signed by the Deputy General Manager. There is no reason to give any credence to the ipse dixit of the Petitioner that he was appointed by the Board of Directors and, therefore, could have been dismissed only by the Board.