CHOLPADI JAGANNATH KAMATH Vs. P S V MALLYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for declaration that the order of removal of the petitioner from the service in question supposed to have been passed against him is null and void and of no effect. The petitioner has also prayed for the declaration that the Regulations 7(2), 7(3) and 19 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 are illegal and ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working with Syndicate Bank. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had committed a misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 by showing official favour to certain individuals/firms by permitting unsecured over-drawls, issuing bank guarantees without proper authority, discounting cheques under CODs without proper authority etc, while he was functioning as Manager of the Kanpur Branch of Syndicate Bank. It is also the case of the petitioner that at no stage the petitioner had secured any personal gains out of these transactions, or that this was a malpractice indulged in by the petitioner, or that there was any actual loss suffered by the Bank by such transactions. The integrity and/or the efficiency of the petitioner was not in dispute at any stage. The petitioner was holding his post as a Branch Manager of the Kanpur Branch during the period from 23.4.1979 upto 27.2.1985. He was also holding the post of Officer on Special Duty from 1.5.1985 to October 1985 and has been serving as Manager in the Divisional Office of the Bank at Ahmedabad. When the petitioner was a Branch Manager of Kanpur Branch, he had sanctioned advances, loans, bank guarantees and other facilities to various customers of the bank which, in his best judgment, were in the interest of the Bank. During the course of such transactions, it was necessary and expedient to exceed the authority vested in the petitioner officially on paper by the Management of the Bank. It is also the case of the petitioner that this practice followed by the Branch Manager of the Banks, nationalized or otherwise, is in the interest of the Bank and is, therefore, accepted by Bank Managers as a normal course of business. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Management of the Bank including the petitioner's superiors were aware at all relevant points of time that this practice was being followed consistently and in a routine manner. All facilities granted by the petitioner within or in excess of the stated authorized limits were reported to the Management in a number of ways. Routine statements are sent by all branches to the zonal office and the higher management. The Kanpur Branch being a metropolitan branch was also subjected to daily audit by the professional auditors appointed by the Bank and consisted of persons not employed by the Bank. The said branch was also subjected to inspection by the proper officers of the Bank at routine intervals. The routine correspondence was also sent by the petitioner Branch Manager to the Management drawing their attention to the various facilities granted by the petitioner in the normal course of business. The petitioner had, therefore, no reason to believe at any relevant point of time that this practice was going to be objected to by the Bank many years after the Bank had gained or enjoyed the benefits.

(3.) It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has a good confidential report and there has not been any adverse remarks against him in the post. The petitioner has been given promotions fro time to time. He was given a special award for excellent all-round performance in the first year of his functioning as a Branch Manager. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has achieved record of taking the Kanpur Branch into the category of a Divisional Branch and he had also received letter of appreciation for achievement. Despite the aforesaid facts, the petitioner was served charge-sheet with regard to the alleged irregularities in the aforesaid transactions. The petitioner has filed the present petition mainly challenging the vires of regulation and further challenging the findings of the Inquiry Officer to the effect that the petitioner had committed misconduct within the meaning of the Regulation 3(1). The petitioner has also challenged the legality and validity of the order of removal of the petitioner from the service on the ground that the report of the Inquiry Officer has not been furnished to him prior to effecting the punishment, and also challenged the legality and validity of the punishment on the ground that no show cause notice has been served on him with a view to enable him to make a representation in respect of the punishment imposed and the petitioner has also made it clear in the petition that he reserves his right to file a substantive petition, appeal etc, at appropriate time and this petition was not filed on merits. The petitioner has also raised the issue in the petition that the procedure for consulting the Central Vigilance Commission is violative of principle of natural justice and prejudicial to the charged employee. The Inquiry Officer, instead of submitting his report to disciplinary authority sent it to Central Vigilance Commission for recommendation of the commission to the competent authority, who appeared to have taken into account such recommendation for taking final decision, without taking the confidence of charged employee. It is, therefore, contended that though the recommendation of the commission is not binding on the disciplinary authority, such recommendations may affect the competent authority taking final decision and the recommendations of the commission would be against the interest of the charged employee and, therefore, it is against the principle of natural justice. Since the documents are used against the petitioner without disclosing the same, the action of the respondent Bank against the petitioner is contrary to the law and violative of principle of natural justice and it is, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside.