B RAMCHANDRA RAO Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Syndicate Bank dated 20-2-1996, and the order of the General Manager dated 23-3-1992, are under challenged in this writ petition and a writ of certiorari is sought to quash both these orders. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner died. Thereafter, by order in WPMP No.22228 of 1999 dated 9-11-1999, his wife and both his sons were brought on record as his legal representatives.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that, while working as the Divisional Manager of the respondent-bank at Patna, the petitioner was issued charge memo dated 24-11-1990 for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him during the period, between 11-7-1983 and 3-6-1989, while functioning as the Divisional Manager at the Divisional Office, Hyderabad (Rural Division). The relevant portion of the charge memo reads thus:

(3.) An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of all the charges, except to the limited extent that complaints had been received from certain employees of Government departments to the effect that loans had been arranged for a higher amount than the one agreed to between them earlier. The enquiry officer held that, while the complaints had alleged a conspiracy between the bank and the builders, no such conspiracy had either been alleged in the charge-sheet nor was any evidence adduced to prove the same. The enquiry officer also held that the petitioner's contention that the complaint contained baseless allegations, and were basically aimed at the builders, had not been challenged by the prosecution and that the complaints had apparently originated because of misunderstanding between the borrowers and the builders which was beyond the control of the bank. The enquiry officer further held that no substantial evidence had been adduced by the prosecution to show that the petitioner was responsible for the irregularities alleged in the said complaints or that there were lapses or negligence on his part in the discharge of his official duties.