G MANOHARAN Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined service of the 1st respondent bank as a Clerk in 1976 and was promoted as an officer in 1979 in Junior Management Grade Scale-1. He worked as Branch Manager (officiating) at the Guntur Branch during the period 1987-88. The branch was a medium sized branch to be manned by M.M. Grade Scale-ll Officer, but he was officiating as Manager in that branch and he was the only officer in that branch during that period and consequently there was lot of work pressure on him. He worked sincerely and to the best of his ability keeping in view the best interests of the bank. He acted as per the practices prevailing in the bank to the satisfaction of the customers of the Bank while protecting the interests of the bank.

(2.) It is stated that it is not uncommon in the banks that sometimes the Manger of the Branch will have to take independent decisions to meet the demands of the customers and to increase the business of the branch even beyond his discretionary powers. The decisions are taken keeping in view the solvency position of the particular customer and the same will be ratified by the controlling authority. This is inevitable in view of the competition among the banks and to attract more customers, and in that process, the petitioner too has sanctioned certain overdrafts in exercise of his discretionary power only to the solvent parties and the same were ultimately ratified by his superiors. Such an act of a Branch Manager may at the most amount to an irregularity in following the procedure but cannot be termed as misconduct.

(3.) The 3rd respondent issued a showcause notice dated 14-4-1998 stating that certain irregularities, committed by him while officiating as Branch Manager of Guntur Branch, were found out and sought for his explanation. The first irregularity was sanctioning cash credits to two sisterconcerns namely, S.V.Chillies Trading Company and Vignayeswara Trading Company beyond the sanctioned limits. The second irregularity was that certain bills purchased by the Branch were without prior sanction and reporting. The 3rd charge was that certain cheques of various parties received through clearing house were debited to the Branch Account instead of returning them for want of funds. He submitted explanation on 2-6-1988 explaining the practice prevailing and the circumstances in which the decisions were taken by him keeping in view the demand of the customers and the interests of the bank. It is submitted that all the cash credits given by him to S.V.Chillies Trading Company and Vignayeswara Trading Company beyond his discretionary powers were ratified by the 3rd respondent even before the show-cause notice was issued as the parties were old customers with adequate solvency. All the amounts advanced to them were recovered with interest. All the bills purchased by the branch got realized on the maturity dates without anyfailure. Similarly, in respect of the cheques debited to the branch Accounts, where the party's Accounts were having debit balance were also recovered fully with interest. The Bank did not suffer any loss on account of these allegations and the amounts were recovered in the normal course without involving any litigation. Thus, he requested the 3rd respondent to consider the above facts and to drop further proceedings.