KAMESHWAR SINGH Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who at the material time was working as a Cashier with the respondent Bank got away with relatively mild punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect on the grave charge of extorting money from a number of poor borrowers for disbursing the small bank loans to them. Mr. Chandrmauli Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, strongly argued that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner was quite illegal and unsustainable as it was based on a domestic enquiry and its report made in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel urged the Court to disregard, at least for a while, the gravity of the charge and to examine the manner in which the charge was sought to be fastened upon the petitioner. He pointed out that the charge was held to be established against the petitioner on the basis of statements of the borrowers, made not in the course of the enquiry against the petitioner, but on other occasions and behind his back. The finding of the petitioner's guilt was, thus, arrived at by denying him any opportunity to cross-examine those whose allegations against him were considered and relied upon in the enquiry report,

(2.) Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, appearing for the respondent bank, contended that the finding recorded in the enquiry report was based on materials which were reliable and logically probative. He further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, this management had produced before the enquiry the best materials available with it to establish the charge against the petitioner and it was the petitioner who had declined to cross-examine the management's witness through whom the borrowers' statements were brought on record of the enquiry.

(3.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it will be necessary to have a brief look at the facts of the case. The petitioner, at the material time, was working as a Cashier at the G.B. Road, Gaya Branch of the respondent bank. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of a charge sheet dated July 15, 1987. From the charge sheet, a photostat copy of which is at Annexure-1, it appears that from December 2 to 12, 1985, a loan disbursement camp was organised by the district authorities of Gaya in course of which 27 loans under the Integrated Rural Development Programme (I.R.D.P. Loans) were granted to various borrowers for the purchase of Cows, Buffaloes, Horses, and Carts etc. The loans were disbursed by one Shri Asrani (who was then acting as the Senior Manager of the Branch) with the assistance of the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner was that he coerced the borrowers into paying him illegal gratification. The modus operandi was simple but effective, he force the borrowers to accept lesser sums though signing the bank papers showing full payment of the sanctioned amounts on the threat that refusal or failure to comply with his demand would lead to the cancellation of the loan. The charge sheet cited the cases of five such borrowers; namely, Shri Devki Yadav, Shri Rajendra Ravidas, Shri Chowa Yadav, Shri Mahesh Ram and Shri Dayanand Pandey who were made to accept a lesser sum than what was the sanctioned amount by adopting this extortionist method.