GORAKH NATH SINGH Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated January 3, 2001 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of dismissal from service as a measure of punishment after the departmental inquiry. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated May 16, 2002 (Annexure-1) whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.

(2.) Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as the Manager of the Buxar branch of the Bank of India. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was served with the following charges. Charge No. I.

(3.) On the aforesaid charges, an inquiry was conducted and the Inquiring Authority on consideration of the material placed before it, held the petitioner guilty of charge No. 1(a) in respect of accounts Jai Mata Di Filter Industries, Sita Tyres, Dilip Tractors, Mahendra Glass Stores and Rai Int Udyog whereas the said allegation was not proved in the account of Kisan Tyres. The Inquiring Authority also concluded that the allegation in Article No. l(b) i.e. sanctioning overlimits exceeding delegated authority is not proved. Further, it observed that the allegations in Article l(c) in respect of accounts Jai Mata Di Filters Industries, Raja Motors, Dilip Tractors, Mahendra Glass Stores, Rai Int Udyog and Mr. Sreedhar Sharma are proved while the same allegations are not proved in accounts of Kisan Tyres, Buxar Automobiles, Shashi Automobiles and Mr. Sheojee Tiwary. The allegation in Article No. 1(f) are proved in 5 accounts while the same was not proved in the case of accounts Buxar Automobiles and Shashi Enterprises, Bihar Tyres Stores and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Upadhyay. The allegation of sanctioning limits to firms/individuals having activity outside of the service area as mentioned in Article l(g) of the charge, they have been found proved in the accounts of Ranjit Singh and Chaitanya Singh and not in the remaining accounts mentioned therein. Further the allegation of security being defective/insufficient and not enforceable has been found proved in respect of accounts while the said allegation was not proved in respect of 11 accounts listed under Article 1(h). Taking into account the fact that the allegations under Article No. 1 except under l(b) have been proved in respect of majority of the accounts listed therein, the Inquiring Authority concluded that Article No. 1 is conclusively proved. The Inquiring Authority further observed in his findings that the Bank is likely to incur financial loss of Rs. 36,64,528 due to the proved misconduct of Shri G. N. Singh as detailed in Article No. 1. In respect of Charge No. II, the Inquiring Authority found that Shri G.N. Singh had granted overlimits in the accounts mentioned therein despite suspension of his lending powers and thus Article No. II is conclusively proved. The report of the Inquiry Officer was laid before the disciplinary authority who found the allegation proved against the petitioner to be serious and accordingly inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority by the impugned order, dismissed the appeal.