BANKEY BIHARI RAI SON OF SHRI LAKHAN RAI, R/O MOHALLA JAPANI Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD and RAVI RANJAN JJ.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18th May, 1987 (Annexure -6) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of dismissal from service. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 21st November, 1987 (Annexure -9), whereby the Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal from service. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts given rise to the present application, are that while the petitioner was working as Officiating Branch Manager of Muradpur Branch of the Central Bank of India at Patna, he was placed under suspension by order as contained in memo dated 10th April, 1982. Later on, by order dated 9.6.1984, the order of suspension was revoked with a condition that petitioner should report at the Muradpur Branch to work as an Additional Officer for effecting recovery of loans and advances made by him. While he was working as Additional Officer in the said Branch, a show cause notice dated 1.6.1985 was issued calling upon him to explain as to why a disciplinary proceeding be not initiated against him. In compliance thereof, he filed his explanation dated 27,6.1985. The Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the explanation filed by the petitioner decided to hold departmental inquiry against him by order as contained in memo dated 24th December, 1985 and he was served with memo of charges. The memo of charges contained 11 articles of charges. They are as follows: - 1. Misutilising his position in the place of Branch Manager, he sanctioned loans and advances to various non -existent firms/units. 2. Misutilising his position as Branch Manager, he sanctioned loans and advances recklessly in excess of his discretionary powers and at far off places beyond the control of the Branch, where our Branches are already functioning. He did so completely overlooking the follow up and recovery aspects with ulterior motives. Further, he did not report such advances in the relative control returns in time and thus concealed the facts from the higher authorities. 3. During the period of Credit squeeze i.e. 1.9.1981 to 21.12.81, he made unauthorized advances, violating Reserve Bank of India directives, to different firms/units to the tune of about Rs. 25.90 lakhs (excluding DRI advances and Demand Loans). 4. He failed to ensure proper working procedure in respect of handling and follow up of advances. 5. He made advances in the name of working capital finance without verifying the end - use of the term loan component already advanced by him. He also did not care to verify the end -use of Bank 'sfinance by conducting post inspection of the units financed. He also allowed working capital component much before the sanction of the term loan component. 6. On inspection of the units financed by him, wherever available, stocks found were nil. insufficientlineligible. Bank 'ssignboard was not displayed. Financing was done much in excess of the units ' requirement. Machineries/goods were not purchased by the borrowers in a number of cases. Funds raised by way of such finance made by him were diverted by the borrowers in most of the cases. He thereby violated the basic lending norms, putting the interest of the Bank in jeopardy. 7. He made advances to the parties who are the members of same family. 8. He allowed payment of cost of machinery (term loan component) to the supplier, who are Current Account holder of the Branch, simply by using transfer voucher or even paid in cash without ensuring the supply of assets to the borrowers. 9. In some cases, he obtained title deeds from the borrowers without seeking legal opinion and thereby failed to protect interest of the Bank. 10. On 6.3.1982 he unauthorisedly allowed payment of a cheque for Rs. 5000/ - drawn by M/s Hind Arts Cottage (CCA/C) in absence of the Branch Manager, Shri N.K. Das with vested interest. 11. He irregularly allowed BP facility to M/s Patna Supply Agency by purchasing Cheques drawn by private parties, whereas sanction in the account was for purchasing Government Cheques/documents only. Out of 9 cheques so purchased in the account between 6.3.1981 to 30.12.1981, there is no record of sending for realization of 7 cheques either in the Dispatch Register or in the Peon Book of the Branch. Our Arrah Office (drawee branch) informed that no such cheques were received by them."

(3.) ON receipt of the aforesaid memo of charges, the petitioner filed his written statement (Annexure - 3). By order dated 28.1.1986, one Rabindra Sharma was appointed as the Presenting Officer and by another order of the same day, Shri Y. Shiva Shankar was appointed as the Inquiring Officer. Petitioner participated in the inquiry which was held between the period 3.4.1986 to 20.3.1987. After the conclusion of the inquiry, petitioner submitted his written statement of defence dated 20.1.1987 (Annexure -4) before the Inquiring Officer.