RAMAKANT D TRIPATHI Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even a bare look at the above extracts from the proceedings and the orders will he sufficient to show that the whole enquiry has gone off the tangent. The charge was that the petitioner did not effect inspection. The evidence in the form of to bills showed that he had effected inspection. So an attempt was made to spin a new charge without any attention of the petitioner being specifically drawn to it and the attempt is pitiable also. The MR alleged that the petitioner himself had not submitted the reports but submission was required to be made to whom was not at all made clear even in the finding. The MR then stated that the petitioner should not have sanctioned loans without obtaining relevant reports in this regard. The petitioner was never told that he had to obtain relevant reports and that in fact he had not. Something off the charge was alleged only at the time of the inquiry. At the stage of the enquiry the MR asserted that the petitioner had not submitted reports. I have already referred to this. So the only allegation at the time of the enquiry was that the petitioner had not submitted those reports. When the matter came to recording a finding the Enquiry Officer stated that he had not obtained relevant reports. Thus there is evidently irreconcilable decision taken differently at different times. On this ground also the finding can be said to be totally vitiated.

(2.) Mr. N. J. Mehta in this connection submitted that the word effect would mean doing or getting things done. With respects it is difficult to strain the language in the manner Mr. Mehta suggested. The charge that has been reproduced above would show that the only charge that was levelled against the petitioner was that he had failed to effect inspection but when it was found that he had effected inspections himself both before and after the sanction of loans a somersault was taken and a new case was sought to be created and that too in a half-hearted manner. It is therefore safe for me to conclude that there was no material whatsoever to bring home the charge and therefore the charge was vitiated in toto. The Appellate Authority in this regard simply observed that the petitioner had not obtained pre-sanction inspection reports. The Appellate Authority in this connection mechanically reproduced what was found by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. No note has been taken of the petitioners assertion supported by documents that there were no gaudiness issued in this regard no provision was alleged to be existing under which such reports were to be submitted by the petitioner or were to be obtained by him from the Agricultural Finance Officer and no mind was applied to the petitioners assertion that in the initial stages he was told that it was not necessary for him to conduct these inspections himself and that he should rely on a specially appointed officer for dealing with the agricultural finances. Such important documents relied upon by the petitioner were at least required to be considered and dealt with but inconvenient situations were totally ignored and this would also go to vitiate the enquiry the findings and the punishment imposed on the petitioner.

(3.) On the above short grounds and without going into the question as to whether the Regulation 8 (Central Bank Officers Employees (Disciplines & appeal Regulations 1976 was required to be followed despite introduction of Regulation 6 into Regulation 8 whether the proper documents were furnished or not it is held that the findings are totally vitiated. They can be branded as perverse and the impression that has been left in my mind on the perusal of these proceedings the part of which is already extracted above is that the whole enquiry was initiated after about more than six years with an ulterior object in mind since the petitioner was emboldened to file a suit against the Bank in the City Civil Court challenging the Banks action of reverting him from his post and denying him other benefits and stopping his increments. His explanation was sought for in the year 1970 and he had furnished the same and if there was any case for holding departmental enquiry nothing was there to deal the Bank from initiating the same then on within a reasonable time thereafter. The Agricultural Finance Officer was dealt with departmentally and his services were put an end to. The long period of six years lapsed and it was only after the summons of the suit was received that this bogey of enquiry came to be started. As many as 39 charges were bundled of together and out of them only two charges can be allegedly made good and I have already shown that it was a feeble and faint attempt that was foredoomed to failure.