KHIROD KUMAR SAHU Vs. ODISHA GRAMYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s)

(2.) THE petitioner's case as appearing through the writ petition is that the petitioner entered into the service of opposite party no.1 previously known as Cuttack Gramya Bank as Manager in the year 1980. He claims to have been rendering duty to the best satisfaction of all concerned and never acted in a manner, which will go against the departmental interest of the Bank. W hile continue as Branch Manager of Rudhia Branch in the year 1995, one Cash Credit proposal for sanction of loan worth Rs.1,10,000/ -(rupees one lakh ten thousand) was received by him. As per the conditions for grant of Cash Credit facility one needs to deposit certain amount and to provide equitable mortgage of landed property worth Rs.70,000/ - (rupees seventy thousand). Loanee deposited an amount of Rs.80,205(rupees eighty thousand two hundred five), which was the renewal proceed of old MSY C of Rs.70,000/ -(rupees seventy thousand). At this stage coming to know that only a sum of Rs,1,00,000/ -(rupees one lakh) has been sanctioned in his favour, the loanee expressed his unwillingness to give equitable mortgage of Rs.70,000/ -(rupees seventy thousand), since difference between the loan amount and deposit was less than Rs.20,000/ -(rupees twenty thousand), consequently the loanee requested to sanction the aforesaid loan against his deposit of Rs.80,205/ -(rupees eighty thousand) two hundred five) and further requested not to insist on the submission of equitable mortgage. Failing such exemption, he threatened to pursue his sister to take back her deposit. The particular Branch being a small Branch, apprehending loosing business in the Bank, the petitioner contacted the senior Manager Credit Administration Department over telephone and sought for his advice. The petitioner further submitted that the Credit Administration Department advised him over telephone not to insist on submission of equitable mortgage and directed the petitioner to release the loan and advised the petitioner to send a letter to the Head Office for confirmation of the transaction with realization. Accordingly, after sanctioning the loan, the petitioner issued a letter to the Head Officer on 29.12.1995 disclosing the entire development and specifically mentioning his discussion over phone with the Credit Administration Department and the advice regarding the disbursement of loan without realization of equitable mortgage.

(3.) IN the year 1999, the petitioner was transferred to Rudhia Branch while the matter stood thus vide letter no.CAD/HO/476/01 -02 dated 07.08.2001, the opposite party no.2required to petitioner to submit the reply as to why accountability will not be fixed apart from initiating the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for his alleged violation of the sanctioning norms for disbursement of loan deliberately. In response to which the petitioner filed a detailed reply on 25.08.2001 clearly indicating therein that though as per Head Office norms, the loanee was to give equitable mortgage of landed property worth Rs.70,000/ -(rupees seventy thousand) but, under the threat by the loanee to take return of his deposits, the petitioner contacted the senior Manager CAD requiring his advice and only after getting the advice of the senior Manager over telephone, he relaxed the condition. On the above plea, the petitioner requested the authorities not take any action against him. The petitioner's further case is that in spite of his reply dated 25.08.2001 being forwarded by the Manager where the petitioner was working at the relevant time, the Chairman formed disciplinary authority vide reference No.PAD/HO/2284/01 -02 dated 24.09.2001, required the petitioner to submit a written statement of defence within fifteen days of receipt of the said letter. In response to which, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegation and charge -sheet against him. W hile refuting the allegation, the petitioner specifically disclosed the advice and approval of the then senior Manager CAD basing on which he had released the loan amount. In spite of his clear explanation, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated under the impression against the petitioner that he has no response to the charge -sheet. In the enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Officer on 15.10.2001 allowed the petitioner to verify certain documents and on the 2nd day, i.e., on 20.01.2002 he dropped the enquiry with an observation that the petitioner has admitted the charges. Since the petitioner had not made any admission on the very same day he submitted the representation (22.01.2002) expressing that he has never committed any mistake nor he has admitted the charges before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner alleged that in spite of his above representation, the disciplinary authority wrote letter no.PAD/VIG/HO/140/02 -03 dated 21.08.2002 requiring the petitioner to give his comments to the Enquiry Report within fifteen days, enclosing therein a copy of the enquiry report. In response to the letter dated 21.08.2002 the petitioner on 31.08.2002 submitted his comments repeating the submissions he has already made and prayed before the disciplinary authority to exonerate him from the charges. By subsequent letter dated 31.08.2002, the petitioner wrote to the disciplinary authority that the concerned loan dues has already been liquidated by November 2002 thus again requested to exonerate him from the charges.