RAMCHANDRA S JOSHI Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was served with a charge sheet in terms of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Appeal Regulations") alleging major misconducts. What constitutes 'major misconduct' is set out under the provisions of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Conduct Regulations"). Regulation 3 sets out generally what an Officer should do in the course of his employment. Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations sets out that a breach of any of the provisions of the Regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Appeal Regulations. Petitioner replied to the charge sheet. An inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and held in terms of his findings as recorded in the inquiry report, that in respect of some of the items they were not proved and the other charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority by his communication of 10th March, 2000 informed the petitioner that he disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry officer and annexed a copy of the order as to why he disagreed with the findings as set out therein. The Disciplinary Authority also observed that the act and commission on the part of the petitioner has resulted in financial loss to the bank to the extent of Rs.149 lacs as the bank had to file law suits against the firm for recovery of dues. It is also recorded that there are no securities available to cover the outstanding and that the petitioner before disbursing the facilities should have ensured that the securities were properly charged to the bank and that the bank's charge was enforceable. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to remain present for hearing.

(2.) The petitioner thereafter filed his representation dated 28th March, 2000. By order of 10th May, 2000 the Disciplinary Authority was pleased to record a finding that the loss occasioned to the Bank was upto Rs.149 lacs and consequently imposed the penalty of dismissal from the date of the order. The period of suspension was confirmed as period not spent on duty and not to be counted for increment purposes. It was also ordered that since the financial loss is quantified at Rs.149 lacs, the same be recovered from Bank's contribution and interest thereon from the Provident Fund of the petitioner and the entire amount of gratuity payable to him.

(3.) The petitioner aggrieved preferred an appeal dated 22nd May, 2000. In the appeal the petitioner has raised no grounds as to the validity or illegality of Inquiry conducted on the ground that it was not in terms of the Appeal regulations and for that matter that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice and/or fair play while conducting the inquiry. In further submission to the appeal, the appellant worked out a figure of the expected loss and in his opinion at the highest the loss would be to the extent of Rs.126.43 lacs and as there were others, who had been charge sheeted for the similar act of misconduct, if the same was worked out proportionately it would be in the sum of about Rs.30 lacs. From the another document dated 16th December, 2000 of the petitioner, according to his quantification, the bank's contribution to the provident fund was in the sum of Rs.5 lacs and gratuity would be Rs.5 lacs. The Appellate Authority by his order of 27th January, 2001 found that there is no merit in the appeal. The Appellate Authority also dealt with the contentions made by the petitioner that the loss was not attributed to him as not acceptable and also rejected the contention that the same should not be recovered from his terminal benefits.