PRANAB KUMAR SAHA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Punjab National Bank.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was Senior Manager (Management Grade-III) District Manager office in the Punjab National Bank who retired from service on 31/7/2017. Counsel submits that he was appointed in the Bank on 1/1/1979 and with the span of time, he was provided three promotions. The first promotion was granted to him from the cadre of Clerk to Junior Manager Grade-I (Officer) on 8/9/1988, second promotion was granted on 15/1/2023 from Junior Manager Grade-I to Branch Manager and third promotion was given to the cadre of Senior Manager (Management Grade-III) on 28/10/2009. Counsel submits that after promotion as Senior Manager he was transferred and his posting was at Udwantnagar Branch (Ara) of the bank from where he was relieved on 16/7/2013. In Udwantnagar Branch the petitioner had advanced loan for 46 Tractors. The loan so sanctioned was for commercial purpose, under Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme (CGTMSE) wherein no collateral was required to be pledged with the Bank. Counsel submits that after advancement of loan two routine inspections of the branch was done and in the inspection report neither any irregularity was found nor any adverse remark was made by the inspection team against the petitioner. The letter of appreciation was issued by the different authorities of the bank with regard to performance of the petitioner in the bank. Counsel submits that petitioner has completed the entire process of advancement of loan for 46 Tractors and registration and insurance of those tractors were made under commercial purposes. Counsel submits that during the course of discussion with the senior officers of the bank, a mail was sent by the circle office Ara to CGTMSE, Mumbai, wherein it was stated that the tractor financed for commercial purpose is eligible for CGTMSE cover. Counsel submits that the senior officers of the bank regularly visited and inspected the working of the branch and no irregularity or adverse remark was made against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the same thing happened in the Baruna branch, Ara, of the bank, but the then Senior Manager posted at the said branch was left after giving caution and no disciplinary action was taken against him but the petitioner was served a letter by the Circle Head on 24/4/2014. In response of the said letter, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 23/6/2014. But instead of accepting his reply the respondent bank has decided to issue a charge sheet to the petitioner on 19/11/2015. Counsel submits that in the said charge which has been issued to him 19/11/2015 two charges were imposed, the first charge was that the petitioner did not adhere to the norms prescribed under delegation of powers and deviated from the prescribed norms as Sanctioning Authority and sanctioned 46 tractors' loan with sanctioned limit of Rs.200.67 lakhs under Small Medium Enterprises by obtaining CGTMSE cover in violation of bank guidelines. And in the second charge it has been alleged that the petitioner did not ensure the eligibility criteria in 46 tractor loan accounts sanctioned by him.