BISHNU RAM Vs. UCO BANK THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was serving as Branch Manager of Shambhuganj Branch of the United Commercial Bank (for short "the respondent Bank") between 2004-08. He was transferred therefrom in June, 2008 and posted at Mesra Branch of the respondent Bank on 17.6.2009. On 7.7.2009, he was served with statement of allegation/articles of charge relating to gross violation of lending norms of the respondent Bank in sanctioning and disbursement of different types of loans/advances during his posting as Branch Manager, Shambhuganj Branch. Petitioner submitted his reply thereto on 24.7.2009 (Annexure-2). This was followed by a departmental enquiry in which he participated. In the meantime, on 31.7.2009, he superannuated from the service of respondent Bank. On completion of enquiry proceeding, the enquiry report was submitted in which two of the charges/allegations were found fully proved. Rest seven charges were found partially proved. The Disciplinary Authority on a consideration of the materials on record passed an order on 25.3.2010 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner was inflicted punishment of dismissal from service. Petitioner filed appeal there against (Annexure-4). The Appellate Authority of the respondent Bank by an order dated 4.10.2010 (Annexure-5) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Aforesaid order(s) passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-3) as well as the order dated 4.10.2010 (Annexure-5) passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal have been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ proceeding.

(2.) Learned counsel, appearing in support of the application, criticized the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that the documents exhibited on behalf of the management of the respondent Bank were not duly proved. The petitioner was not served with the enquiry report as also the second show cause notice enabling him to submit his explanation on the findings of the enquiry report. In the submission of learned counsel, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is, thus, fit to be interfered with and quashed. He relies in this regard on Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank, 2009 2 SCC 570 and Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, 1993 4 SCC 727. The appellate order dated 4.10.2010 has been criticized on the ground that it is cryptic and does not set out reasons for not accepting the issues/points raised in the Memo of Appeal. It has been contended that the Appellate Authority was exercising quasi judicial power and as such he was required to consider all the points raised in the Memo of Appeal and assign reasons for not accepting them. In order to highlight the requirements of law in the matter of consideration of appeal in departmental proceeding, the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank supported the impugned orders. It has been contended that the charges precisely relate to commissions and omissions in reckless financing under different schemes violating the Bank guidelines inasmuch as most of the advances made by the petitioner were found irregular, potential and/or non-performing assets. In substance, they relate to highly improper and irregular documentation in respect of the advances/loans disbursed to the beneficiaries. The audit report relating to the period of his posting as Branch Manager (2004-08) found and detected that during the said period, advances/loans worth Rs. 8 crores were disbursed out of which loans worth Rs. 5 crores (approx.) were found to be suffering from serious deficiencies in the matter of documentation relating to those advances as a result whereof those account(s) financed by the petitioner were found potential N.P.A. and/or Non-Performing Assets. Learned counsel, referring to the Departmental Proceeding Report (DPR) (Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit) submitted that in view of the contents of the DPR and the enquiry report (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit), it would appear that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as all the relevant documents were produced and made part of the Enquiry Report as Managements Exibits Nos. 1 to 110. Petitioner was given adequate opportunity to peruse the same and to summon any defence witness which was refused. The defence representative of the petitioner took a stand that the petitioner/delinquent would rely on those documents in order to put up his defence. In the submission of the petitioner, if no prejudice is caused much less serious prejudice then merely because enquiry report was not made available to the delinquent/petitioner affording him an opportunity to submit second show cause would not vitiate the proceeding and the order passed thereon. Learned counsel highlights that the petitioner was a senior officer serving the Bank in the capacity of Branch Manager. Ignorance of the relevant circulars/guidelines issued by the respondent Bank/National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) cannot be a ground particularly in view of the stand taken by the defence representative in the enquiry proceeding. In this connection, she also relies on E.C.I.L. vs. B. Karunakar as also on Union of India vs. Alok Kumar, 2010 5 SCC 349