N RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner while working as Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, in its branch office at Janpath, New Delhi, was served with a charge sheet on 10.01.1991. Seven charges were framed against him viz., Charge No.1: THE petitioner while working as Chief Manager, Janpath branch, during 1989 and 1990, opened number of revolving Letter of Credits in various accounts of Indana Group of Companies and the revolving Letter of Credits were opened without reinstatement clause and he has committed various irregularities and against the terms of sanction in the manual of instructions and Central Office guidelines and therefore he has failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and charged under Regulation 3.1 and 3.3 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 read with Regulation 24 which is punishable under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Charge No.2: THE petitioner has allowed unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.47 lakhs approximately in the accounts of Foremost Industries (I) Limited and Indodan Industries Limited at the time when accounts were grossly overdrawn and in spite of reminders from Zonal Office, he failed to monitor the accounts and therefore he failed to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank, thus charged under the above said Regulations. Charge No.3: THE petitioner has not inspected the stocks in the account of Indodan Industries and Foremost Industries (I) Limited, who have not submitted their monthly stock statements and position of the account which is grossly out of order and therefore charged under the Regulations stated above. On 06.5.1991, the following additional charges were framed against the petitioner viz., Charge No. 4: THE petitioner while working as Chief Manager at Janpath branch during 1989 -1990, signed Letter of Credit No.44/48 dated 25.08.1990, for Rs.41,18,852.40/ - favoring M/s. Manu Steels, 118, Shakti Vihar, New Delhi wherein the advising branch is named as Addison Building, Madras branch. THE petitioner should have advised the Letter of Credit direct or through any other branch in Delhi, since the beneficiaries was having its address at Delhi. THE beneficiaries M/s. Manu Steels by letter dated 22.09.1990, has brought to the notice of the branch that Letter of Credits is a fraud and it did not pertain to them. THE petitioner instead of making enquires, signed the letter dated 05.10.1990 and the matter has not been taken up with the negotiating bank viz., Standard Chartered Bank, Madras. THErefore, despite of knowledge of fraud, the petitioner gave instruction to send telex to honour the commitments under the Letter of Credits and therefore liable for action as per the above Regulations. Charge No. 5: THE petitioner unauthorized and without the knowledge of any other official and without entering into bank's books, signed the letters to various banks confirming acceptance of documents under Letter of Credits stating that payment of the said bills will be made on due date and hence charged under the above said Regulations. Charge No.5(A): In spite of knowledge of denial by the beneficiary having involved in the Letter of Credit transaction being a fraud, the petitioner signed a letter dated 27.09.1990 to M/s. Standard Chartered Bank, Mylapore that payment will be made on 20.02.1991, without knowledge of any official from Bank and without recording in Letter of Credit register and therefore charged under the above said Regulations. Charge No.6: All revolving Letter of Credits were unauthorized signed by the petitioner and did not contain the important basic documents such as transport documents, insurance documents and commercial invoice. No limiting period was mentioned for presentation of documents for negotiation from the date of shipments and the last date of negotiation as informed by the party without verifying and taking necessary documentary evidence and therefore charged under the above said Regulations. Charge No.7: THE petitioner has unauthorized transferred a limit of Rs.5 lacs for cheque discounting from the account of M/s. Indodan Industries Ltd. for use at Addison Building, Madras for utilization of discounting local as well as up -country cheques drawn on M/s. Indodan Industries Ltd. Even higher authorities were not informed about the same and not reported the position of accounts to the Zonal Office, thus hiding an act done without authority and in gross violation of bank's rules and therefore charged under the above said Regulations.

(2.) THE said charge sheet dated 10.01.1991, as well as, additional charge sheet dated 06.05.1991, accompanied the various documents and list of witnesses and the petitioner has also inspected various documents as admitted by him in his letter dated 04.02.1991, addressed to the Disciplinary Authority and Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, New Delhi.

(3.) IT was against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority viz., the first respondent, the petitioner has filed appeal. The Appellate Authority viz., the second respondent General Manager, Central Bank of India, Bombay who, by his letter dated 24.05.1999, has confirmed the punishment of dismissal as it was communicated to the petitioner by the second respondent dated 14.06.1999. IT is as against the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent as confirmed by the second respondent Appellate Authority as stated above, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.