BANAMBAR PANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER calls in question legality of the order passed by the General Manager (Personnel and Administration), United Bank of India (Opp. Party No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') placing him under suspension because a criminal proceeding is pending against him before the learned Special Judge, C. B. I. , Bhubaneswar in T. R. Case No. 49 of 1994.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts which are undisputed are essentially as follows: Petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the employer-bank in respect of Nimpur Branch. The Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, 'cbi') filed first information report inter alia on the ground that a loan of Rs. 2,25,000/- was sanctioned in favour of one Durga Prasad Das without following due procedure. Said Durga Prasad claimed to be a Distributor of cinematograph films. Rama Chandra Jena and Lokanath Jena stood as guarantors and agreed to mortgage their lands measuring Ac. 8. 51 dec. to secure the loan. As per the norms and conditions of the bank, equitable mortgage in respect of the landed property/building has to be taken from the loanee. In case of Shri Durga Prasad, the aforesaid norms were not followed and security by way of equitable mortgage was not taken prior to sanction of the loan. Petitioner forwarded the loan application of Durga Prasad with favourable recommendations to sanction the loan. He also did not point out the irregularities. The petitioner did not make pre and post inspection while sanctioning the loan to Durga Prasad, a fictitious loanee. The loan was also granted for false purposes, and same was disbursed on manipulated documents. Periodic inspections were also not done and the matter was not pursued. Loan documents should not be renewed. It was, therefore, alleged that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 120b/ 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'i. P. C. ') and Section 13 (2) read with Section 33 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the 'pc Act' ). In terms, of Regulation 12 (2) of the United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short, the. 'regulations') petitioner was placed under suspension.

(3.) PETITIONER's grievance is that said Durga Prasad is not a fictitious person as claimed, because a Money Suit has already been instituted. Prolonged suspension has led to physical and mental torture, and consequentially stigma and humiliation. Delay in submission of the charge sheet/completion of trial is not attributable to the petitioner and the order of suspension should be revoked and the petitioner should be permitted to join back.