ATUL ROMESHCHANDRA DESAI Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was working with the respondent-Bank as Deputy General Manager, seeks a direction on the respondents that they should accept his request for voluntary retirement with consequential benefits. He challenges the order dated 14-10-1994 of the respondent-Bank rejecting his application for voluntary retirement and also challenges the show-cause notice dated 16/ 19/11/1994 by which he was called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for the reasons mentioned in that notice.

(2.) The petitioner, on 11/08/1994 sent a communication to the respondent-Bank, a copy of which is at Annexure "B" to the petition, stating that as he turned 55 years of age on 2/08/1994, his request for voluntary retirement from the Bank's service should be considered. Again on 19/08/1994, he wrote to the Bank to consider his request for voluntary retirement from service and in that connection to waive or reduce the notice period from three months to two months and relieve him 8/10/1994 instead of 10/11/1994 on which date the three months period was to expire. In response to his request for voluntary retirement under these two letters, the Bank responded by its letter dated 12/1 4/10/1994 stating that his request was put up before the competent authority and the competent authority had regretted its inability to consider his request for voluntary retirement under the scheme for such voluntary retirement. Thereafter, on 10-11-1994, being the date on which the three months period was to end, the petitioner wrote to the respondent-Bank referring to the letter dated 12/ 14/10/1994, that although the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was regretted, he was leaving the services of the Bank after office hours on 10-11-1994, in terms of Regulation 20(2) of the Bank of Baroda (Officers) Service Regulations. In context of this letter, the Bank wrote to him on 11-11-1994 that he could not, under Regulation 20(2), leave service of the Bank in this manner and that he ought to resume his duties, failing which action as may be deemed fit under the provisions of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 would be taken. On 14-11-1994, the petitioner again referred to his request for voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme and declared that he stood retired from 10-11-1994 and that he should be paid his dues on that footing with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In context of the communication dated 11-11-1994, the petitioner wrote to the respondent on 14-11-1994 that the respondent- Bank was bound to allow the petitioner to voluntarily retire and that non-acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement was null and void and liable to be ignored. He, therefore, called upon the respondent-Bank to withdraw the letter dated 12/1 4/10/1994. Thereupon, the Bank wrote to him on 15/ 16/11/1994 stating that the decision communicated on 14-10-1994 regretting his request for voluntary retirement was taken by the competent authority - namely the Chairman, in exercise of his powers under the scheme for voluntary retirement in view of certain irregularities which were alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in processing, sanctioning and follow-up of certain accounts while he was posted at the London Office of the Bank. The petitioner was advised to resume duties forthwith, failing which it was stated that the Bank will be constrained to take action under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of the Bank. It was also stated that the letter of the petitioner dated 10-11-1994 which referred to Regulation 20(2) could not even be treated as a resignation and if it was intended as a resignation, then the Bank did not accept it for the same reasons. On 16th/ 19/11/1994, the impugned show-cause notice (copy at Annexure "H") was issued on the petitioner alleging that serious irregularities were committed in granting credit facilities to Shri Mukund Maganbhai Patel and his associates. It was also stated that though the account of the associate company named in the notice was not satisfactory and the account was reported to Reserve Bank of India as a problem credit as of 30-9-1989, numerous adverse features were not brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the petitioner while recommending to the higher authorities to allow the petitioner to release the facilities to that company. It was alleged that the petitioner had, in the process of obtaining clearance withheld vital information and misled the higher authorities and allowed further credit facilities exposing the additional funds of the Bank to unnecessary risk and loss. It was alleged that the petitioner, though familiar with the deceiful behaviour of the said party, allowed a temporary overdraft of Pound Sterling 247,688.89 on 16-10-1990, which was increased upto Pound Sterling 535,261.62 on 23-10-1990. It was alleged in the notice that such temporary overdraft could be allowed only to a well established account of a client, who had satisfactory relations with the Bank and the petitioner had grossly flouted this Rule by granting a huge temporary overdraft to this party. The overdraft was to be adjusted within a weeks' time, but it was not adjusted and the Bank was likely to incur a huge financial loss of the outstanding amount of Pound Sterling 175,622/- plus interest from 30/06/1991. It was also noted that in February, 1991 the petitioner was asked to clarify his position vis-a-vis granting of the said temporary overdraft. It was alleged that the petitioner had stated on 4-3-1991 that he was making efforts to realise the amount and that an amount of Pound Sterling 70,000/- was being credited on that day. In this regard, it was alleged that from the record it was found that there was no credit on that day in the accounts of the concerned party and therefore, the reporting of the petitioner to the Central Office about the recovery in the account was not borne out from the facts and amounted to misleading the higher authority. It was alleged that because of this attitude of the petitioner, Bank was likely to suffer loss to the tune of Rs. 17,99,11,150.00 approximately at the Bank's London Main Office. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him by the Bank for serious lapses and irregularities committed by him due to which the Bank was put to a considerable financial loss. He was given 15 days' time to render his explanation. By communication dated 29-4-1994 addressed through his Advocate to the Bank, the petitioner had sought extension of time till 31-12-1994 for submitting his reply to the show-cause notice. Time was extended upto 31-12-1994 by the Bank's communication dated 9-12-1994 addressed to his Advocate. The petitioner, instead of responding to the show-cause notice by showing as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him, has preferred to approach this Court by way of this petition, which was filed on 4-12-1994.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions :-