DIPANKAR SENGUPTA Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals filed by the writ petitioners in the aforementioned cases although arose out of an order of the learned trial Judge refusing to pass an interim order, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petitions and the appeals were heard together.

(2.) The writ petitioners Dipankar Sengupta and Chittaranjan Samanta were posted as Assistant Manager and Deputy General Manager. Both the Writ Petitioners were charge-sheeted in January, 1991 for commission of alleged misconduct, which is to the following effect: Articles of Charge No. 1 During your tenure as Deputy Manager (Advance) of Calcutta Branch, you had processed, jointly with the Asstt. Manager (Advance), proposal for sanction of Bills Discount Limits of Rs. 25.00 lacs each to 18 companies which are directly or indirectly associated/connected with Hemraj Mahabir Prasad (HMP) Group enjoying substantial credit facilities with the Bank, as per An-nexure 'A' hereto. While processing the above proposals, you had failed to adhere to the usual banking norms and Head Office guidelines/instructions and the credit appraisal was inadequate and perfunctory. You had also recommended the above proposals for sanction by the Chief Manager, knowing it fully well that the sanction of the above credit limits to the aforesaid parties was beyond his discretionary powers in terms of Head Office Circular No.CM/DIS/062/189/PM-78/88 dated October 25, 1988. Besides you had failed to secure compliance with the stipulations mentioned in the processing notes and to incorporate in the sanction letters the clauses requiring submission of statements of stocks and book debts by the borrowing companies. Thus, you had failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, devotion and diligence and thereby committed a misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the UBI Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Articles of Charge No. 2 During your tenure as Deputy Manager (Advance), Calcutta Branch, you had failed to notice through inspection of the units and by making proper enquiries about their business activities that the bills discounted under the B/D limits sanctioned to them as shown in Annexure 'A' hereto, purporting to represent trade transactions, were prima facie in the nature of accommodation bills. Thus, you had acted in a manner which was unbecoming of an officer employee of the Bank and thereby committed a misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with UBI Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Articles of Charge No. 3 During your tenure as Deputy Manager (Advance), Calcutta Branch, you had recommended clean overdrafts of Rs. 25.00 lacs in the current deposit accounts of each of the 12 companies mentioned in Annexure 'B' hereto, knowing fully well that the Chief Manager (in scale IV) of the Branch was not empowered to sanction such overdrafts in terms of H.O. Circular No.O & M/DIS/ 062/189/OM-78/88 dated October 25, 1988. These overdrafts were allowed without obtaining any documents and R.B.I. Cheques/pay orders for Rs. 25.00 lacs each were issued in favour of Indian Bank. The unauthorised overdrafts so allowed by the Chief Manager at your recommendation were subsequently adjusted on different dates by discounting bills (which were prima facie in the nature of accommodation bills) under the B/D limits sanctioned to the above companies. In addition to the above, you did not ensure the end-use of funds lent to the aforesaid companies. Thus, you had failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank and thereby contravened Regulation 3(1) of the UBI Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Articles of Charge No. 4 During your tenure as Dy. Manager (Advance), Calcutta Branch, you had processed, jointly with the Asstt. Manager (Advance) a proposal for a Bills Discount (D.A.Bills) limit of Rs.40.00 lacs favouring Crystal Traders Pvt. Ltd. and recommended it for sanction by the Senior Chief Manager of the Branch, knowing fully well that sanction of the Credit limit to the above company, which is directly or indirectly associated/connected with the HMP Group enjoying substantial credit facilities with the Bank, was beyond the discretionary power of the Senior Chief Manager. You had failed to notice through inspection of the unit and by making proper enquiries about its business activities that the bills discounted under the above limit, purporting to represent trade transactions, were prima facie in the nature of accommodation bills. Although as per terms of sanction, funds were to be released to the extent of Rs. 20.00 lacs within 90 days and the balance amount under the sanctioned limit was to be released thereafter only on satisfactory performance, you had on April 10, 1989 recommended availment of the balance amount of Rs.20.00 lacs of the limit (after release of Rs.20.00 lacs on March 9, 1989 and March 10, 1989) in violation of the terms of sanction and the same was allowed by the Senior Chief Manager on your recommendation. Besides the above, you did not obtain an Auditor's Certificate in support of the company having raised its paid-up capital from the meagre Rs. 200/- to Rs. 5.00 lacs and unsecured loans upto Rs. 19.00 lacs before release of fund, as per terms of sanction and also failed to maintain the stipulated margin of 25% in the said account. Thus, you had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and thereby committed a misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of UBI Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Articles of Charge No. 5 During your tenure as Deputy Manager (Advance), Calcutta Branch you had processed, jointly with the Assistant Manager (Advance), a proposal for a Cash Credit facility in favour of M/s. Sixteen Belvedere (India) Pvt. Ltd. and recommended for sanction of a limit of Rs. 45.00 lacs by the Senior Chief Manager, knowing fully well that sanction of the credit limit to the aforesaid company, which is directly or indirectly associated/connected with the HMP Group enjoying substantial credit facilities with the Bank, was beyond the discretionary power of the Senior Chief Manager. While processing the above proposal, you failed to make a proper assessment of the need based requirement of the party and did not carry out a pre-sanction inspection of the unit. You had failed to secure compliance with the terms of sanction, such as, insurance of stocks, submission of stock statements by the borrower at monthly intervals and matching contribution by the borrower proportionately with the release of Bank's fund. Besides, you had allowed drawings in the account on some occasions far in excess of the available drawing power. Thus, you acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and thereby committed a misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of UBI Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.

(3.) The petitioners filed a written statement denying the charges levelled against them. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the said charges. After holding enquiry, enquiry report dated February 27, 1992 was submitted which is contained in Annexure 'E' to the writ application. It appears from the enquiry report that both in relation to Dipankar Sengupta and Chittaranjan Samanta, he found most of the charges as not proved. It was further found that there was no evidence of motive or mala fide on the part of the writ petitioners with regard to their conduct. However, they were found to be guilty in respect of certain procedural and supervisory lapses.