NIRAKAR SAHOO Vs. NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application assails the order of the disciplinary authority dated 27-3-1997 (in Annexure-7) dismissing him from service and also directing recovery of 50% of pecuniary loss caused to the Bank as a measure of punishment in pursuance of a disciplinary proceeding and the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal. The petitioner, while serving as Branch Manager in Kunjam Branch of Neelachal Gramya Bank, was served with a charge-sheet on 12-10-1995 on the allegation that while he was working as Manager of Babandha Branch, Rs. 4.1,750 had been deposited on different dates in different savings bank accounts and loan accounts, but the same had been misappropriated without being accounted for in the Bank's cash. As a Branch Manager, the petitioner had authenticated the credit entries in the respective Savings Bank ledgers and loan ledgers without verification and in the process, allowed one Promod Kumar Sahoo, the then Clerk-cum-Cashier of the said branch to manipulate different G.L. heads in the General Ledger and General Ledger Balance and helped him to misappropriate the aforesaid amount. The petitioner filed his reply to the said charges denying the same, but the reply submitted by the petitioner was not accepted by the Bank and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. One Shri Sribatsa Kumar Panda, an officer of the Bank, was appointed as inquiry officer. After completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty of all the charges and on the basis of the said inquiry report, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed by the disciplinary authority apart from directing recovery of 50% of the alleged misappropriated amount. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, as a result of which, the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 16584 of 1997 challenging the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority dismissing the appeal. This Court disposed of the said writ application on 9th January, 2003 holding that there was contravention of subsection (2) of section 14 of the Regional Rural Bank's Act, 1976 and, accordingly, remitted the matter? back to the appellate authority for consideration of the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter, the appellate authority again considered the appeal, dismissed the same and intimation thereof was given to the petitioner in Annexure-11 dated 23-6-2003. Again challenging the order of disciplinary authority as well as the order of the appellate authority passed after remand, this writ application has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed both the orders basically on two grounds. The first ground taken by the learned counsel is that appeal of the petitioner was taken up in the 129th Meeting of the Board where the Chairman absented himself but no decision could be taken on the appeal. Again in the 130th Meeting of the Board, Chairman of the Bank participated to have the quorum and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, again there has been infraction of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the aforesaid Act. The second ground of challenge is that in the inquiry proceeding, the petitioner has only been found guilty of negligence and the actual misappropriation has been done by Promod Kumar Sahoo and, therefore, the order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service and directing recovery of 50% of pecuniary loss caused to the Bank is disproportionate and should be interfered with.

(3.) So far as the second ground taken by the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that misappropriation of funds in a financial institution is not to be considered lightly and the petitioner was the Manager at the relevant time and he should have noticed the irregularities committed by his subordinates and taken action. Silence on the part of the petitioner resulted in misappropriation of funds by one of the subordinates and, therefore, the petitioner cannot say that he was not responsible for the same. According to the learned counsel for the Bank, quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is justified.