P K KALIA Vs. CANARA BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, Sudhir Agarwal-The petitioner by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the following reliefs :

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present dispute are that at the relevant time the petitioner was working as Branch Manager and was posted at Modinagar Branch of the Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as "Bank"), when a charge sheet dated 28th March, 1984, (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was served upon the petitioner. On 9th December, 1986, Sri U. K. Rao was appointed as Inquiry Officer and it was informed by letter dated 9th January, 1987, that enquiry will continue against the petitioner. THE petitioner submitted its reply on 13th February, 1987, to the charge sheet denying the charges levelled therein. THE Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry and submitted inquiry report on 9th January, 1988, proposing punishment of dismissal from service. THE respondents vide letter dated 29th January, 1988, communicated the punishment of dismissal to the petitioner. THE petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal before the appellate authority. THE appellate authority vide order dated 3rd May, 1989, decided the appeal and reduced punishment of dismissal from service to reduction to the lower post of Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale 1 and fixed pay at Rs. 2,085 per month, and recovery of money as per Regulation 4 (d) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as '1976 Regulations'). Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a representation/review to the Chairman of the Bank on 4th December, 1989, but the aforesaid review was dismissed by the concerned respondent on 28th December, 1989. THE petitioner thereafter received a letter for recovery for a sum of Rs. 34,442.41. It is against the aforesaid orders and recovery, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) HEREIN in the present case also, as would be clear from the charge sheet "In almost all categories of advances post disbursement supervision has also not been found effective. Statements of Stocks hypothecated to the Bank have not been received from any of the borrowers. The branch has also never perused the performance in this regard. The monthly instalments have not been deducted from the salaries of the staff members to adjust their loan amounts and in some cases, the amount due has exceeded the sanctioned limit. There has been found no system in the branch to adjust the loans given against the security of F.D.Rs. on the date of the maturity thereof. In many cases, documents were incompletely filled in and the guarantees had not been obtained on proper non-judicial stamp paper. In some cases, promissory notes were found to have been obtained without affixing proper revenue stamps thereon."