NILA MADHAB BORAH Vs. ALLAHBAD BANK H O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge his dismissal from Banking service vide order dt. 12.7.91, filed as Annexure-13 to the petition. The petitioner had also preferred an appeal against the said order but the appeal was also dismissed by order dated 4.1.92, Annexure-15.

(2.) Brief statement of facts, necessary for disposal of this petition, is that the petitioner joined the Banking Services as a Probationary Officer in the year 1982 and eventually got his managerial assignment in 1985. He had seen his transfers at different places before being posted to the Regional Office of the Bank at Guwahati, where he joined on 6.12.88, followed by a suspension order on 28.12.88. His request to remain at Naharkatia was not acceded to.

(3.) On 2.2.89, the petitioner was served the charge-sheet, Annexure-3, petitioner replied thereto, Annexure-4. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner asked for certain documents vide letter dt. 6.4.91, Annexure-A/ 7 but the same were not supplied as per the reply dated 6.9.91, Annexure-8. The enquiry was concluded on 10.5.91, Annexure-9, without allowing the petitioner to examine his defence witness. The petitioner was supplied a copy of the enquiry report to which he submitted his reply dated 4.7.91, Annexure- 12, and following the same came the order of dismissal on 12.7.91, Annesure-13. The appellate order dated 4.1.92 is filed as Annexure-15 to the petition. To appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has covered almost the whole gamut of service jurisprudence ultimately concluding his submissions with the shockingly excessive punishment imposed on the petitioner, relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in State of U.P. Vs. B.C. Chatunredi, AIR 1996 SC 848, it was strenousty toged that the punishment as imposed, deserves to be altered or modified. The appellate authority has disposed of the appeal in a perfunctory casual manner. To appreciate the submissions, it would be pertinent to note the articles of charges which would also incidentally provide the factual metrix of the whole case: "Article of charge No.l :- Shri Nilmadhab Borah while functioning an the Manager of the Bank's Naharkatia Branch during the period from 14.5.1987 to 21.12.1988, dubiously allowed Shri Nirod Kumar Mahapatra, Ex-Manager of Duliajan Branch, to obtain each remittance of Rs. 5.50 lacs (rupees five lacs and fifty thousand) on 5.12.1988, on behalf of Duliajan Branch in the form of issuance of two drafts for Rs. 2.65 lacs and Rs. 2.50 lacs favouring third parties even knowing fully well that the said Shri Mahapatra was not the Manager of Duliajan Branch on the relevant date. The said drafts have been paid at Tinsukia Branch through the account of the payee. Thus by his aforesaid irregular unauthorised action, the said Shri Borah, in connivance with the said Shri N.K. Mahapatra, jeopardised the Bank's financial interest for the aforesaid huge amount. Article of Charge No.II :- That the said Shri Nilmadhab Borah while functioning as the Manager of the Bank's Naharkatia Branch, during the aforesaid period had irregularly/ unauthorisedly discounted four fixed deposit receipts aggregating Rs. 3.80 lacs (Rupees 3 lacs eighty thousand) on 16.11.1988 without any specific mandate of the depositors and in violation of the Government/Bank's directives. Article of Charges No. III :-That the said Shri Nilmadhab Borah while functioning as the Manager of the said Branch during the period from 14.5.1987 to 21.12.1988 had fraudulantly issued four "fake duplicate" Fixed Deposit Receipts aggregating Rs.5.25 lacs (Rupees five lacs twenty five thousand) all dated 13.5.1988 which were held as securities at the Bank's Duliajan Branch to Cover -the advances allowed by Shri Nirod Kumar Mahapatra to a borrower at the said Branch. The aforesaid acts of omission/ commission of Shri Nilmadhah Borah, Ex-Manager of Naharkatia Branch are in clear violation of Regulation 3(1) and 3(3) of the Allahabad Bank Officer-Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and amount to misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 of the said Regulations."