RAKSHIT N MAZUMADAR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an officer of the Dena Bank has filed this Special Civil Application and challenge has been made to the order of the Deputy General Manager, Personnel of the Bank dated 23.2.1985, under which he was ordered to be dismissed from services and the order of the appellate authority dated 20th September, 1985, confirming the said order in appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised four contentions challenging the validity, legality and correctness of the aforesaid two orders which are as under: (i) The petitioner has submitted written submissions before the enquiry officer but the enquiry officer has mentioned in the enquiry report that the petitioner has not submitted any written submissions. So the written submissions of the petitioner were not taken into consideration and only on this ground both the orders vitiate. (ii) Because of the alleged act or omission of petitioner, the Bank has not suffered any loss and as such, the petitioner should not have been given any penalty. (iii) The petitioner has prayed for giving him personal hearing but the appellate authority has not given the same to the petitioner and as such on this ground, the order of the appellate authority vitiates. (iv) Exceeding of powers by petitioner to permit the customers for withdrawal against clearance of Cheque is only an act of lack of correct decision or error or mistake but it cannot be said to be a case of lack of integrity or negligence.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents contended that the Bank has suffered heavy loss because of the exercise of powers beyond his competence by the petitioner of extending the facility of withdrawal of amount against clearance. It is not the case of simple lack of decision or inaction or omission or error or wrong decision. It is a case where the petitioner has given undue benefits to the customers which has ultimately resulted detrimental to the Bank. This misconduct of the petitioner has also been reported to CBI and the CBI has already filed Challan against him which is pending in the Criminal Court. It has next been contended that in fact, the petitioner had colluded with some customers of the Bank in extending the undue benefit and it is a case of lack of integrity. It has next been contended that Dena Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, nowhere provide any right of hearing to the delinquent officer before the appellate authority in appeal filed by him against the order of disciplinary authority. Replying the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted written submissions before the enquiry officer but the enquiry officer has recorded that no such written submissions have been submitted, the learned counsel for respondents contended that written submissions were received late. It is contended that the enquiry report is a detailed one and the enquiry officer has considered each and every evidence produced by parties and then has reached to conclusion on the charges. The petitioner has failed to show how any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by non-consideration of written submissions alleged to have been submitted by him to the enquiry officer. Carrying this contention further, the learned counsel for respondents contended that Disciplinary Rules nowhere contemplate that written submissions have to be taken by the enquiry officer. Replying to the last contention, the learned counsel for respondents contended that the exceeding of powers by the officer of the Bank in advancing loan limits etc., is a serious misconduct and it cannot be said to be a case of mere omission or error or mistake. In support of this contention the learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager & Ors. vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69.