LAWS(BOM)-2005-6-131

ANANDA BABU KAMBLE Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On June 21, 2005
Ananda Babu Kamble Appellant
V/S
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in a Branch of the Bank of Maharashtra, situated at Bhedasgaon in the Taluka of Shahuwadi in the District of Kolhapur. A chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner on 19th April 1988 in the course of disciplinary proceedings involving a charge of misconduct. Regulation 24 of the Bank of Maharashtra Officers' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 was invoked and it was alleged that the Petitioner had not taken all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank; that he had not discharged his duties with integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and that his acts and omissions amounted to conduct unbecoming of a Bank Officer, thus violating Clause 3(1) of the Regulations. The charges of misconduct involved the dealings of the Petitioner in respect of loans allegedly disbursed to two borrowers under the Integrated Rural Development Programme for the establishment of small businesses of Kirana Shops. The amount of advance in each case was Rs.10,000/-, the purpose of the loan being for working capital, purchase of stock-in-trade, furniture and equipment for the shops. It is alleged that the loan disbursement was debited to the loan account by transfer and came to be credited to a Demand Draft issued under the Charan Branch of the Bank "favouring ourselves". In both the cases, it was alleged that there was no evidence of the amounts being paid to the borrowers in any form whatsoever and the borrowers denied having received the amounts of loan. Each of the loan amounts was routed through the transfer scroll by debiting the loan accounts and crediting the Charan Branch. DD No.263906 "favouring ourselves" dated 1st April 1987 was alleged to have been encashed by the Manager of the Bhedasgaon Branch on 2nd April 1987. There was similarly no evidence to show that the amount had been paid to the borrowers or to their suppliers or that it had been utilized for the purpose for which it was sanctioned.

(2.) On these allegations, disciplinary proceedings came to be convened. The Petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings and denied the charges. After evidence was adduced, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty of misconduct. The Enquiry Officer found that while releasing the loan payments, the Petitioner, as the Branch Manager, did not either credit the Savings Bank Account of the two borrowers, nor for that matter, did he issue Pay Orders directly to the suppliers towards the supply of goods to the borrowers. Instead of following the routine procedure, the Petitioner issued DD No.263906 in the amount of Rs.20,000/- on the Charan Branch of the Bank "favouring ourselves". On 1st April 1987, the Charan Branch had a non-business transacting working day. Normally, cash needs of the Bhedasgaon Branch, where the Petitioner was working, were being met by drawals on the Bambavade Branch. On 1st April 1987, the Bambavade Branch had indicated by its letter (Exh.E1) that an amount of Rs.25,000/- had already been paid to the Petitioner and that it was not possible for that Branch to honour the request of the Petitioner for the payment of a further amount of Rs.20,000/- on the same day. The Petitioner thereupon approached the Charan Branch on 2nd April 1987 and encashed a Demand Draft for Rs.20,000/-. The Petitioner did not enter this cash remittance of Rs.20,000/- in the cash scroll of the Bank. The Petitioner did not credit the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the Savings Bank Accounts of the two borrowers, B.L. Kamble and M.K. Mhole.

(3.) A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the Petitioner together with a notice dated 26th December 1988 calling for an explanation. The Petitioner submitted his reply on 26th December 1988. The disciplinary authority passed an order on 27th March 1989 concurring with the report of the Enquiry Officer holding that the charge of misconduct was established. The Petitioner accordingly came to be dismissed from service.