V.NARAYANAN Vs. CHIEF MANAGER BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.V.Narayanan, who worked as a Branch Manager in the Bank of India at Kadavasal in Nagapattinam District, was subjected to the disciplinary proceedings for the articles of charge mentioned in the charge memo dated 23.11.2012. Even prior to the issuance of the charge memo, he was placed under suspension by order dated 26.4.2012. After appointment of the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer completed the enquiry and finally found him guilty of the charges. Based on the finding of guilt arrived at by the enquiry officer, rejecting the further representation given by the petitioner, he was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service, vide order dated 23.10.2013.Aggrieved thereby, he has preferred an appeal before the Zonal Manager, Chennai Zone and Appellate Authority, who also confirmed the major penalty of dismissal, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment in terms of Regulation 4(j) of the Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, dismissed the appeal. The said order was also confirmed by the Reviewing Authority. Challenging these orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Dr.A.E.Chelliah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner heavily contended that when the petitioner had not done anything that would attract even a minor penalty, because, he had not even acted in a way unbecoming of an Officer or has brought disrepute to the bank through his action, imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service is not only unfair and unjust, but also unknown to law, inasmuch as the grave punishment of dismissal from service has caused mental torture, trauma with financial insecurity, resultantly, the petitioner has been undergoing untold misery from the date of dismissal till now. Therefore, the impugned penalty of dismissal from service is liable to be set aside. When the petitioner was subjected to face the disciplinary proceedings, inter alia, contending that he had violated the Bank's lending norms in various loan accounts, incurred travelling expenses without obtaining prior permission from the Zonal office, effected remittance to the petitioner's daughter's account and one of his relatives through customer's account etc., these charges levelled against the petitioner were not based on any complaint from anyone. Dr.Chelliah, explaining further, pleaded that the respondents have so unfairly initiated the disciplinary proceedings, without there being any foundation of any complaint, only based on some observations made in the audit report on some alleged irregularities and lapses, which were only procedural in nature. Ironically, when the same procedural lapses and irregularities had occurred during the period of his successors, the same respondents have not seriously viewed the same, more importantly, one of the petitioner's successors had even renewed the loan, which was allegedly termed as a bogus loan and he was not given any punishment. After subsequent renewals, when fresh loans were extended to the borrowers after the repayment of the loans sanctioned by the petitioner, the investigating officer and leader of the vigilance team did not have adequate knowledge either about the usual practice of the bank or the circulars of the RBI/NABARD/BoI about the various lending norms, as a result, the investigating officer overacted and overstepped on many occasions to reach a wrong conclusion based on mere surmises and assumptions.

(3.) Continuing further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that many circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the NABARD were blindly ignored by the enquiring authority, disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority. Equally, the chief of the investigation team never recorded the petitioner's version during the entire investigation process before even concluding and submitting his report in June, 2012. But sadly, the petitioner was suspended from service on 27.4.2012 and unfairly he was slapped with the order of dismissal. When the petitioner cannot be imposed with the minor penalty to the alleged procedural lapses referred to in the charge memo, the impugned punishment given to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority in his order dated 23.10.2013, which has been confirmed by both the appellate and reviewing authorities, is liable to be set aside. Dr.Chelliah, finding fault with the framing of charges, contended that insofar as the first article of charge that the petitioner had unduly accommodated one Mr.S.Selvakumar by sanctioning various loans to him and to his relatives is concerned, cannot be considered as gross violation of the bank's lending norms and procedure, because, this loan was sanctioned to D.Janaki independently recommended by Khadi and Village Industries Board (KVIB) under the Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) scheme. Since this unit was functioning in the same building where Mr.S.Selvakumar was also having his unit, when the functioning of the unit has been confirmed by M.W.3 during cross examination by the disciplinary authority and it was also admitted that Ms.D.Janaki is not a family member, but a relative, the first article of charge should fail. But this was completely overlooked by the enquiry officer, disciplinary, appellate and reviewing authorities. One another allegation that Mr.Selvakumar was given the second loan of Rs.5 lakhs under the Government Subsidy Scheme in violation of the bank's norm, has also been disproved by the petitioner in his explanation that the second loan was also sponsored and recommended by the Khadi and Village Industries Board. When the petitioner gave his explanation that the loan was considered only because of the good track record of Mr.Selvakumar in repayment of the loans and the substantial proof shown by the petitioner with the insurance policy and release of subsidy by the Government departments as a proof of asset creation, the said charge cannot be held as proved. Explaining further, it was stated that the asset creation part was accepted by the management on the basis of insurance policy and since the benefit of subsidy has not been released to Mr.Selvakumar's account and was retained by the bank separately, the same can be returned to the Government if the beneficiary is found ineligible. Therefore, there is no loss in this regard to the bank or the sponsoring department. But sadly, the enquiry officer gave a finding that though the delinquent officer's defence of availability of insurance policy and release of subsidy by the sponsoring department are acceptable as evidence, the petitioner failed to ensure that no family can be given the benefit of more than one subsidy linked loan while considering the second subsidy loan to Mr.Selvakumar. When the subsidy released by the Government is kept separately and the benefit not extended to the borrower, the enquiry officer's report is silent on this issue. Therefore, when there was no loss in this regard to the bank or the sponsoring department, the charge levelled against the petitioner that the petitioner had given more than one subsidy linked loan to Mr.Selvakumar is unfounded.