PREM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has retired as Assistant Manager from, the Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to, as 'the respondent bank'), has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 18.3.2008 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab (respondent No. 2 herein), whereby while allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent bank, the order dated 29.10.2007, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Enforcement), Punjab (respondent No. 3 herein), has been set aside and the respondent bank has been permitted to retain an amount of Rs. 2,50,800/- out of the retiral benefits of the petitioner, which was due against the loanee, namely M/s Mangat Ram Shuttering Store, Bambial (hereinafter referred to as 'the loanee firm'), with a condition to reimburse the same to the petitioner, if the same is recovered from the loanee firm and its guarantors.

(2.) The petitioner, while posted as Branch Manager at Narot Jaimal Singh, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, had committed various acts of omissions and commissions. He processed the loan application of the loanee firm and while wrongly evaluating the property, which did not exist at all, he recommended to the higher authorities for grant of loan of Rs. 2,35,000/- to the loanee firm. On the basis of the said recommendation, the said loan was sanctioned. The petitioner also illegally provided two cash credit limits of Rs. 2.15 lacs and Rs. 2.60 lacs in the name of his two sons. For those illegalities, the petitioner was charge sheeted in the year 2003. In the enquiry, the charges were duly proved. After the enquiry, when a show cause notice along with copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner, he challenged the said show cause notice. The same was set aside by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, while holding that the Supervisory Officer could not have issued the show cause notice. Again the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. During the pendency of the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court praying for quashing the order of his suspension. In view of the written statement, filed by the respondent bank that since the enquiry report has already been finalized in the charge sheet issued to the petitioner and the respondent bank will take a final decision on the said enquiry report within the stipulated time, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. Finally, show cause notice dated 24.3.2006 (Annexure P-S) was issued to the petitioner, proposing the punishment of his dismissal from service. When the petitioner was directed to appear in person before the punishing authority, he submitted an affidavit dated 29.3.2006 (Annexure P-7) categorically stating therein that the cash credit limits of Rs. 2.15 lacs and Rs. 2.60 lacs in the name of his two sons may be deducted from his retiral dues. In the affidavit, he further stated that the amount of loan outstanding against the loanee firm be also deducted from his retiral dues and be kept in suspense account. The petitioner had taken the said stand before the punishing authority, so that he could have taken the benefits of his retiral benefits, because he was going to retire on 31.3.2006. On the basis of the said affidavit and the stand taken by the petitioner before the punishing authority, a lenient view was taken and instead of passing the order of dismissal, suspension of the petitioner was revoked and he was reinstated with certain conditions, including the following two conditions:

(3.) After his retirement and receiving all the retiral dues after deduction of the aforesaid two amounts, the petitioner challenged the condition No. 1 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur, on the ground that the amount of cash credit limits due against his sons cannot be recovered from his retiral dues. Initially, the District Consumer Redressal Forum allowed his complaint, but on an appeal filed by the respondent bank, the said order was set aside by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide its order dated 28.3.2007 (Annexure R-3/1), while making observation that once an undertaking in the shape of affidavit was given by the petitioner, which was followed by a conscious order of the disciplinary authority, the bank was fully justified to appropriate the amount towards the cash credit limits of his two sons.