M V PENDSE Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of dismissal from service passed by the Respondent no. 2. Against the order of dismissal Exh. L dated 30-03-1994, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Respondent no. 5. The appeal was also dismissed, confirming the order of punishment awarded against the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging these orders.

(2.) BEFORE going further, it has to be mentioned here that the petitioner was working as a Chief Internal Auditor and he was due to retire on 30-09-1993. Just before a couple of weeks, before his retirement, a charge-sheet has been communicated to him on 08-09-1993. There are altogether eight charges levelled against the petitioner. For the purpose of this case, I do not think it is necessary to extract all the allegations contained in the charge-sheet. But it is necessary to extract two charges namely charge nos. 7 and 8. Charge No. 7 : while working as Regional Manager, Pune, Shri M. V. Pendse unauthorisedly sanctioned loans to following two transport operators in contravention of Central Office instructions not to finance/sanction any loans to Transport Operators during the relevant period. Name of the A/c. Branch Date of Amount Sanction 1. Babu rao Mahadeo Sangle. Aranyashwar 12-9-85 90,000 2. Shiv Chhatrpati Nagar Vikas Sahakari Sanstha. Wadgaon Anand 06-5-86 68,000 charge No. 8 : while working as Regional Manager, Ahmednagar, Shri M. V. Pendse unauthorisedly allowed adhoc limits/excesses on number of occasions, amounting to about Rs. 6 lacs. In the account M/s. National Castings with MIDC, Nagar branch, inspite of the fact that conduct of the account was not satisfactory. He also overlooked the security aspect and thereby failed to protect the bank's interest.

(3.) THE petitioner was exonerated partly from the charge no. 7 and exonerated fully from the charge no. 8. On a close perusal of these charges it can be seen that it contains a general allegation against the petitioner that he used to sanction loans violating the norms issued by the higher authorities and he used to sanction the loans beyond his limits allowed by the authority. Even though the charges are itemanised either in number the violation of limit has been incorporated in all these charges. He had sanctioned the loans on different times since 05-02-1970 to 28-06-1986. It may be mentioned that during he proceedings he did not deny these charges. In otherwords, he did not take up the contention that he had not crossed the limit of his authority. In fact he has more or less conceded by him. In this background we have to examine the proceedings of the disciplinary authority in this case.