SHIV PUJAN GWALIA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN 9 of 2015 is a formal application by the petitioner for correcting the affidavit verifying the petition. Such application is allowed by requiring the correction as indicated in paragraph 3 of the application to be incorporated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit verifying the petition. The appropriate amendment in the affidavit should be incorporated immediately.

(2.) A bank officer who has been removed from service for recklessly recommending the grant of credit facilities to a seemingly undeserving borrower complains of the disproportionate punishment meted out to him for an act of inadvertence. In addition to the complaint of disproportionate punishment, the petitioner complains of the unfair procedure in the bank not favouring the petitioner with a copy of the report of the disciplinary authority on the basis of which the appointing authority handed down the extreme punishment of removal. The petitioner asserts that there was no charge of lack of integrity on his part and, since the petitioner was one of three officials who recommended the grant of the loan, it was unfair for the petitioner to be singled out for the harshest punishment while the others were let off lightly.

(3.) A newly-formed company applied for credit facilities in December, 2010 when the petitioner was posted as manager (RMME) at the small and medium enterprises branch of the State Bank of India at Chiriamore on the fringes of the city. The loan proposal was appraised, inter alia, by the petitioner before the application being put up for sanction to the network credit committee of the bank. The charges brought against the petitioner were, inter alia, that the petitioner had overlooked the adverse reports against the two directors of the would-be borrower company as evident from the CIBIL website. The substance of the charges was that the credit records of the directors of the would-be borrower company which had then been recently floated did not merit a recommendation in support of the application and material facts were not mentioned in the recommendation. In the case of one of the directors of the company there were four instances of settlement and one instance where the amount due was written of, but such facts were not referred to in the recommendation. In the case of the other director there was an outstanding building loan in excess of Rs. 20 lakh but such fact was not recorded in the recommendation. Sundry other details pertaining to the applicant company were also said to have been overlooked while recommending the grant of the credit facilities sought.