RANG LAL MEENA Vs. CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, then working as Branch Manager with the respondent No. 1, the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'/'the respondent-Bank') having been penalised after Departmental Enquiry with reversion to the post of Clerk (Banking Assistant) by the order made by the Disciplinary Authority on 23.03.2002 (Annex.7); and his appeal having been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 01.08.2003 (Annex.11), preferred an appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies that came to be rejected as incompetent by the order dated 01.09.2003 (Annex.13). The petitioner has assailed the orders aforesaid by way of this petition for writ.

(2.) Briefly put, the facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in the present petition are that the petitioner, while working as Branch Manager at Mahuwa Branch of the respondent-Bank was put under suspension by the order dated 26.05.2001 (Annex.1) and then, was served with a charge sheet for proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 14.09.2001 (Annex.3) alleging his misconduct in the following terms:

(3.) In relation to charge No. 1, it was alleged that though, after finding irregularities while the petitioner was posted at Hamirgarh Branch of the Bank, by an order dated 24.08.1999 disbursement/sanctioning of any loan was prohibited until further orders yet, at Mahuwa Branch of the Bank, the petitioner proceeded to disburse loans upto Rs. 25,000/-; and the Bank commanded the petitioner again by its letter dated 26.05.2000 (Annex.14) that the earlier restraint order issued while he was working at Hamirgarh Branch was still in operation; and his powers to sanction loan upto Rs. 25,000/-stood seized until further orders; and he was called upon to transmit the original files in relation to the loans disbursed by him. It was alleged that the petitioner failed to send such files and, this apart, despite seizure of his powers, the petitioner proceeded to advance loans to 11 named firms on different dates between 19.10.2000 to 19.05.2001. In relation to charge No. 2 for sanctioning of loans against the policy of the Bank and putting the amount of the Bank in doubts and for breach of financial discipline, it was alleged that several of the loanees were situated outside the area of the Branch concerned; that in majority of cases cash credit limit was sanctioned for three years though ordinarily such limit ought to have been sanctioned only for one year; that the petitioner failed to obtain adequate and lawful security towards the amount of loan; that the loanees were required to submit monthly stock statements but the petitioner permitted drawing of loans without stocks statements; and that several of the stock statements related to fixed assets that were not relevant for cash credit limit.