SIURENDRA DEO PANDEY Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was a Branch Manager in Nasriganj Branch of the respondent Bank and one Narbadeshwar Ojha was Accountant in that very Branch of the Bank at the relevant period. Both were proceeded against in departmental proceedings on more or less similar charges that they had acted in collusion and had liberally sanctioned loans and advances to different account holders without caring for established procedure. It is an admitted factual position that during the absence of petitioner as Branch Manager Sri N. Ojha (the Accountant) was competent to sanction loans and advances and he had actually allowed loans and advances to several borrowers.

(2.) THE main charges against the petitioner were charges no. 1 and 2 as mentioned in the memo of charges (Annexure -1) and a perusal of the enquiry report contained in Annexure -5 shows that the enquiry officer found charges no. 1 and 2 to be partially proved. It is not clear from the enquiry report as to what is the correct implication of charges no. 1 and 2 being partially proved but the finding as recorded suggests that in the opinion of the enquiry officer the petitioner could not escape from the responsibilities of procedural shortcomings and lapses in several cases. For charge nos. 1 and 2 the disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment of dismissal. The other charges i.e.charge nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 relate essentially to the charge that petitioner was not careful in observing the procedures and norms in the grant of loan or in adjusting advances and for these charges i.e. charge nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 he has been granted punishments of reduction of basic pay by different stages. In fact, charge nos. 4 and 7 are only to the effect that petitioner did not take action against Sri Narbadeshwar Ojha, the Accountant. With regard to charge no. 6 to the effect that petitioner failed to take effective follow up action to recover Bank 'sdues from the borrowers, the enquiry officer relied upon the figures that 9.95 lakhs of sanctioned loan (sanctioned between 25.9.1984 to 11.2.1985) had become outstanding on 25.8.1998 as Rs. 15.44 lakhs and hence, the petitioner was guilty of negligence for not taking effective follow up measures. For this charge also the disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment of dismissal.

(3.) IT was lastly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that with more or less similar allegations and charges, which is evident from Annexure -4/A, the memo of charges against Sri N. Ojha, the Accountant, Shri Ojha had challenged the order of his dismissal through CWJC No. 2219 of 1993 and after going through the materials and the nature of charges this Court interfered with the order of dismissal vide judgment and order dated 29.9.1995. A perusal of the certified copy of the aforesaid judgment dated 29.9.1995 passed in the case of Shri Narbadeshwar Ojha V/s. The Central Bank of India and ors. (CWJC No. 2219/1993) shows that after going through the nature of allegations and findings this Court, in the case of the Accountant held that the findings of irregularity in granting loans by not following the procedure was established but not the other charges and on the established charge of irregularity, this Court found the punishment of dismissal from service to be shockingly disproportionate and hence, the matter was remitted to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner of that case and to inflict proper and proportionate punishment. It is not in dispute that the Bank accepted the views of this Court in that case and Sri Narbadeshwar Ojha, the Accountant, was awarded other punishments but not dismissal.