AMMAIAPPAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel on either side. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the charge memo issued against the petitioner dated 9. 4. 2007 by the respondent Bank. The crux of the charge in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in collusion with some middle men, opened a Savings Bank Account of prospective borrowers without actually knowing them and without ensuring their presence. In view of the same, the allegations and the charge framed against the petitioner are to the following effect:. . . . "you recommended Canbudget loans to them to the extent of Rs. 89. 56 lakhs during the period from January 2006 to March 2006 violating the laid down norms for identification of the borrowers, execution of documents, disbursement of the loans and follow-up of the loans. All the accounts have become sticky and the whereabouts of the borrowers/company were not known. An investigation conducted in the matter revealed that the documents furnished by the employees of the company as proof of address, income PAN card, Passport were found to be fake/fabricated. Only a few persons purported to be the borrowers said to have visited the branch to open the account and to receive the loan proceeds. The investigation also revealed that the loan proceeds were received by you. The follow up letters sent to the residential addresses of the borrowers were returned with the reason " No such person/no such address/no such street/left etc. ". . . . . . By your above acts, you have failed to discharge your duties with honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and thereby contravened Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, which is punishable under the provisions of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. "

(3.) IT is seen that though enquiry proceedings were initiated in respect of fabrication of documents and also granting of loans in contravention of the rules of the Bank thereby causing financial loss to the Bank, the Central Bureau of Investigation The Central Bureau of Investigation has also registered a case in R. C. No. 9/a/2007 on 21. 1. 2007 against the petitioner and 12 others under Sections 120b, 420, 468, 471 I. P. C. and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is not in dispute that the matter is under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the investigation is not yet completed. Eventhough this writ petition is filed challenging the charge memo, the main ground of attack is that when same set of facts are involved in criminal proceedings as well as in departmental proceedings and when criminal investigation is pending, the petitioner cannot be expected to reveal his defence in the departmental proceedings as it might affect his substantial defence in the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that eventhough the petitioner is prepared to face departmental proceedings, by virtue of pendency of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the departmental proceedings should be deferred till criminal investigation is over.