SATPAL SINGH Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Manager with respondent-Bank, was charge- sheeted on 06.03.2004 (Annexure P/6-1). The charges include of reckless financing without due care/precautions in sanctioning, disbursing the loans and without taking Bank's interest into consideration. The petitioner was alleged to have grossly violated Bank's norms, Rules and Regulations and concealed the facts from the higher authorities. The petitioner was also charged for not following the credit discipline as he did not conduct pre- sanction surveys and post-sanction inspections and also did not ensure end use of funds by verifying assests created out of Bank's finance. Another charge against the petitioner was that he has allowed overdrawing in number of accounts beyond the sanctioning powers vested in him and did not obtain prior permission from the competent authority nor got his action confirmed subsequently and that he did not get proper documents in number of cases, as per the Bank's guidelines. Thus, the charge against the petitioner, was that he has abused his official position and powers and has exposed the Bank's funds to the grave financial risk. Another charge against the petitioner was that he has failed to charge interest in the borrowal accounts of the firms and thus, he has failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, devotion and diligence. There were also allegations against the petitioner that he has failed to submit monthly statements of irregular accounts to the controlling Officer, utilised the fixed deposit receipts lying with the Banks as collateral security in one account to another account to cover the overdrawings allowed in the said account; that he accommodated the named parties by prejudicing the third parties cheques much beyond the powers sanctioned and vested in him. It was, thus, alleged that the petitioner has acted otherwise than in the best of his judgment in performance of duties and acted in the manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and exposed the Bank's funds to great financial risk. The detailed statement of allegations are contained in Annexure P/6-1.

(2.) On the basis of the charge-sheet, after giving an opportunity to participate in such inquiry and to cross-examine the witnesses and to lead evidence, the Inquiry Officer gave his report on 31.12.2004 (Annexure P.12). The Disciplinary Authority found that except charge No. 2, all other charges stand proved. Another show cause notice was given to the petitioner proposing punishment in respect of each charge. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering all the documents passed order of punishment on 25.07.2005 (Annexure P.17) in respect of each charge proved, including the one for compulsory retirement for charge Nos. 3, 4 and 6 and reduction in the basic pay of the petitioner in respect of charge Nos. 5 and 7. The petitioner was also ordered to be reverted in respect of charge No. 1. The appeal against the said order of punishment was dismissed on 09.11.2005 (Annexure P.19). Thus, the challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders of punishment (Annexures P.17 and P.19).

(3.) The only argument, which was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with vehemence was that the documents on the basis of which the respondent-Bank has sought to prove the charges against the petitioner were not supplied to the petitioner and therefore, the enquiry conducted is not fair and reasonable and violates the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against him fall to the ground as the fair opportunity to contest the enquiry proceedings was not provided to him.