BRAJ BHUSHAN CHOUBEY Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER wants quashing of charge -sheet dated 11.12.2004 on the ground of the same being vague, indefinite and non -descriptive. He also wants quashing of the order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority which imposed penalty of the petitioner being brought down to a lower stage in the scale of pay up to maximum of two stages, in terms of Clause 14(6)(e) of the Bipartite Settlement (Annexure -21), as well as the order passed in appeal affirming the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, contained in Annexure -23 to the writ application.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as a Clerk -cum -Cashier under the respondents -Punjab National Bank. He is supposed to have had a clean record spread over a period of 17 years. In the year 2000 a loan of Rs. 3,60,000/ - and Rs. 4 lacs was sanctioned and disbursed to one Shankar Mandal from the two branches of the Bank namely, Bhagalpur Bazar Branch and Barari I.E. Branch respectively. Against the above loans certain National Saving Certificates and Kisan Vikas Patra were pledged as security. Subsequently it seems the National Saving Certificates worth Rs. 6 lacs as well as the Kisan Vikas Patras turned out to be fake. The matter was inquired into and it transpired that the petitioner played a vital role in introducing said Shankar Mandal to both branches of the Bank. He also facilitated the pledging of the said certificates from the post -offices in question. Since the fraud had been committed against the Bank in question, the respondents decided to seek explanation from the petitioner. A show cause was issued on the points that the petitioner had introduced Shankar Mandal to the then Branch Managers of the branches and had prevailed upon them to grant loans against fake securities and the petitioner had accompanied Shankar Mandal to the post -offices in question and got those fake National Saving Certificates and Kisan Vikas Patras assigned in favour of the branches, despite being responsible employee of the Bank. The respondents were not satisfied with the answer given by the petitioner and they decided to hold regular departmental enquiry into the matter and issued a charge -sheet dated 11.12.2004, contained in Annexure -14. The Enquiry Officer held enquiry and produced enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty, based on documental and oral evidence brought on record during the course of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer categorically found that the depositions of the witnesses, defence and the circumstances emerging thereunder was conclusive to show that the petitioner had played an instrumental role in accompanying and introducing Shankar Mandal, a so -called PHED Engineer/Head Clerk to two Managers of the Branch in question and facilitated raising of loans on pledging NSCs and KVPs as security which were found to be fake.

(3.) PETITIONER was thereafter served with a copy of the enquiry report and given opportunity to respond to the same. The disciplinary authority thereafter came to a considered opinion vide order dated 31.1.2006, contained in Annexure -1 that the petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct and the explanations offered by him to the enquiry officer did not exonerate him of the guilt which was prima facie found in the enquiry. The punishment of lowering down in the scale of pay up to maximum of two stages in terms of Clause 14(6)(e) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002 came to be passed.