P A KARKHANIS Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the dismissal dated 30th March, 1998 passed against him by the disciplinary authority-second respondent which order has been confirmed by order dated 18th January, 1999, in appeal by the appellate authority-respondent No. 3. The petitioner carried the matter before the reviewing authority, respondent No. 4. The reviewing authority-respondent No. 4 rejected the review petition vide order dated 21st March, 2000, preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders in the instant petition by invoking Article 226 of the constitution of India.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a Clerk in the respondent Bank on 20th June, 1968. The petitioner subsequently applied for the probationary Officers post and he was selected to the said post in the year 1974. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of scale- II in 1983 and Scale-Ill in 1988. The petitioner came to be transferred to the Hamam Street branch of the respondent Bank on 3rd september, 1990 as a Senior Manager. After joining at the said Branch, the petitioner noticed several irregularities in the matter of procedure adopted by the said branch in connection with maintaining of proper records of investment securities. The petitioner noticed that Switch transactions worth crores of rupees were undertaken by certain brokers which were found to be risky. In this connection, petitioner wrote letters to the higher authorities from time to time but the petitioner was asked by the higher authorities to continue with the said practice which was followed by the said branch since last many years. The petitioner continued to serve as a Senior Manager of Hamam Street branch of the Bank between 3rd September, 1990 and 18th April, 1992. He was subsequently transferred as a Senior Manager of Andheri (East) branch of the Bank.

(3.) THE petitioner was charge-sheeted and was served with the article of charges on 14/17th June, 1994. The charges levelled against the petitioner were in connection with the alleged misconduct committed by him when he was working at the Hamam Street branch of the Bank between the period 3rd September, 1990 and 18th April, 1992. The petitioner was subjected to eight charges. So far as charge No. 1 is concerned, it is in connection with the unauthorized issuance of bank receipts worth several crores of rupees on behalf of various stock brokers. It was alleged that the same was in violation of the instructions of the Zonal office and against the rules and procedures of the Bank. Charge No. 2 is that the petitioner in violation of rules and regulations of the Bank allowed the branch to issue bank receipts under the single signature of a Junior Officer posted at the said branch, exposing the Bank to risk even though such receipts were required to be issued under the joint signatures only. Charge no. 3 is in connection with non-maintenance of proper books and records in respect of the bank receipts, involving huge sums issued by the bank. As per charge No. 4, the petitioner did not ensure that the bank receipts issued or accepted by the Hamam Street were actually backed by relevant securities mentioned therein and such securities were delivered at the time of redemption of the bank receipts. It is alleged that the petitioner had concealed from the higher authorities the fact that in many cases bank receipts were redeemed only by payment and not by physical delivery of the securities mentioned therein. Charge No. 5 is in connection with wrongful diversion of huge sums of money to the stock brokers accounts continuously over a long period enabling them to use the same for speculative purpose. Charge No. 6 is in connection with wrong diversion of Rs. 40 crores in the account of share broker Harshad s. Mehta which is detrimental to the Banks interest and showed wrongful favour to a stock broker. Charge No. 7 is in connection with wrongfully crediting to the current account of share broker Harshad S. Mehta an amount of rs. 26 crores which resulted into wrongful gain to the said broker exposing the Bank to substantial financial loss. Charge No. 8 is in connection with restarting security transaction on behalf of the brokers at the Bank's Hamam street Branch in violation of the instructions from the Zonal Office, Bombay and thereby failed to protect the interest of the Bank. The petitioner was accordingly subjected to the said charges.