RAMKRISHNA SARMA Vs. ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. U. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Chetia, learned counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) The writ petitioner herein is serving as Chief Manager in the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (AGVB) and is presently posted at the Head Office of the Bank at Guwahati. While he was serving as Senior Manager in the Bank, posted at the Nalbari Branch, on 30/8/2022, a Memorandum of Charge (charge-sheet) was served upon the petitioner containing as many as six articles of charges. On 30/9/2022 the petitioner had submitted his reply thereby denying all the allegations brought against him. However, not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Chairman of the Bank, had decided to hold a departmental proceeding into the charges brought against the writ petitioner. Consequently, Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and the enquiry proceeding was held. On conclusion of the enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Officer had submitted report dtd. 21/1/2023 which was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Chairman of the Bank. On receipt of the enquiry report dtd. 21/1/2023, by the order dtd. 1/2/2023, major penalty was imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) By referring to the articles of the charges, Mr. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the materials on record would clearly go to show that the credit facilities were extended to all the six entities after thorough verification of their credentials by the designated committees and also after carrying out inspection of the units by the authorized inspecting team. Mr. Das submits that his client did not take any decision at the individual level but was merely a member of the recommending committee. Considering the fact that the credentials of the defaulting firms had been duly verified by the successive committees and the loan disbursement was processed on the basis of report of the inspecting team, submits Mr. Das, there was no justifiable ground to initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. By relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. and others Vs. Girish Chandra Sarma reported in (2007) 7 SCC 206 Mr. Das submits that since the petitioner was a part of a committee, hence, he could not have been singled out and made a scapegoat in the entire process when there is no specific role ascribed to the petitioner in his individual capacity.