I.SAVARINATHAN Vs. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was originally appointed as Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper on 28.10.1974 in the respondent Bank. Subsequently, in the year 1986, he was promoted as Scale-I Grade Officer and again, in the year 1999, he was promoted as Scale-II Grade Officer. While he was working as Scale-II officer between 2001 and 2004 in the Kumbakonam Branch, he was transferred to Mandaveli Branch, Chennai, with promotion as Senior Manager (Scale-III Grade Officer), whereby, he worked between 2004 and 2007. In the year 2007, he was transferred to Alapuzha, Kerala. Whileso, he was issued with three memos dated 07.11.2007, 26.11.2007 and 17.12.2007 by the Chief Manager of Alleppy Branch alleging certain misconducts, which were alleged to have been committed by him, when he was working as Manager of Kumbakonam Branch, Trichy Region and Senior Manager of Mandaveli Branch, Chennai Region. Though the petitioner has submitted his explanations to the memos, the Disciplinary Authority, as per the Rules of the Bank, issued a charge memo dated 02.06.2008, containing five charges and thereafter, he was placed under suspension on the same date. For better understanding, alleged charges, containing five counts, are extracted hereunder:

(2.) Assailing the impugned orders passed by the respondents, Mr.M.Ramamoorthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, rebutting the charge about the account of M/s.Muthu Fisheries (P) Limited and its status as NPA before coming to the Central Bank of India, contended that the petitioner, before opening the Account, obtained No Due Certificate dated 29.12.2001 from the Bank of Baroda, Veppathur Branch, with whom the said M/s.Muthu Fisheries were having their accounts, to the effect that the firm was enjoying various credit facilities with them and closed all their account dues from them as on date and no amount was due from them. This No Due Certificate was given on 29.12.2001 much prior to the sanction of loan to the said firm on 05.01.2002. Apart from that, search report of the Registrar of Companies which were marked as Exhibits M.Ex.10 and M.Ex.11, would also show that there is no due to either Bank of Baroda or any other Bank. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is contended, the question of Non-performing Asset (NPA) does not arise at all. Based on the said No Due Certificate, proposal forwarded to the Regional Office, Trichy, to their perusal and sanction of loan and thereby, the Competent Authority also accorded permission and hence, the proposal sent by the petitioner was complete in nature. The Presiding Officer of the respondent Bank did not file any evidence to show that the account with Bank of Baroda was Non-performing Asset. Therefore, in the absence of such vital evidence, the impugned orders passed by the respondents confirming the charges levelled against the petitioner, cannot stand to any good reason.

(3.) In respect of the charge that the petitioner failed to counter check the agreement entered into between the proprietor of M/s. Muthu Fisheries Private Limited and the fishermen and whether these fishermen really own the Boats in their name as per the agreement, it is contended that although the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority were aware of the practice and procedure prevailing in agricultural and fisheries sector where there are large number of small and tiny farmers and fishermen, who are not easily accessible, they summarily rejected the petitioner's argument for routing the payments to fishermen through borrowers procurement agent and that agent engages men, who have executed the sale agreement for uninterrupted supply of raw materials. Hence, the findings and observations of the Authorities below are perverse in this regard, he contended.