MATTAPUDI BHANU CHAND Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the respondent-Punjab National Bank in clerical cadre in the year 2014, and thereafter obtained promotion as officer in 2016. While he was serving at Gulbarga Branch as a Manager, a charge sheet was issued to him on 1/10/2020 alleging that,during the period 21/9/2016 to 13/8/2018 when he was posted as Officer incharge of Branch Office, Toopran, he sanctioned loans without conducting due diligence and obtaining confirmation of action as per the Bank's guidelines, and also exceeded his powers to sanction certain loans. It is alleged that loans to the tune of Rs.615.75 lakhs were sanctioned, risking the money of the Bank, out of which Rs.224.19 lakhs are proving difficult to recover. Petitioner submitted explanation to the charges on 4/12/2020. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was conducted by appointing one Mr. Subash Chandra Singh, Chief Manager, as Inquiry Officer, and one Smt.Y.Sumathi as Presenting Officer. Based on the inquiry report, petitioner was held guilty of the charges and a major punishment of Compulsory Retirement was imposed by Order dtd. 1/11/2021 under PNB Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dtd. 25/11/2021 to the Executive Director of the Bank, which was rejected by Order dtd. 21/11/2022 observing that the appeal is rejected, confirming the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the inquiry is lopsided,and he was not afforded a fair opportunity to defend his case and the Regulations have not been followed while imposing the punishment. It is his further grievance that his representation dtd. 25/11/2021 seeking de novo enquiry into the allegations has been construed as an Appeal and the Appellate Authority rejected the same.

(2.) Heard Mr. Kumaraswamy Namburi, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent-Bank. Perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would essentially contend that during October 2017 to November 2017, an inspection was conducted and the observations raised in the Inspection Report were complied and the Inspection Report was closed on 25/1/2018; and thereafter a surprise visit was conducted in February 2018 by Mr. Raghunath, Chief Manager from Circle Office and he verified the loan documentation files and reported some pendency and due to the pendency at Branch, loaning powers had been stopped for Toopran Branch since March 2018 thereby new loans were not sanctioned till August 2018. It is contended that Mr. Samir, and Mr. K. Ramesh, Senior Managers in the Credit Department from Circle Office have periodically visited and verified the pendency during May 2018 and June 2018; and thereafter Mr. Raghunath, Chief Manager visited the Branch again during July 2018 and inspected the loan documents and made an observation that all the objections that he made have been rectified, and only after ensuring the inspection observations were rectified at Toopran Branch Office, the petitioner was transferred to Centralized Loan Processing Cell, Koti. Learned counsel contends that after the petitioner thereafter obtained promotion as Manager Scale-II and was transferred to Bangalore Circle at Dadgi Branch and later to Gulbarga Branch and was informed that he was placed under Suspension for the irregularities at Toopran Branch. Learned counsel contends that none of the aforesaid officials who visited the Branch and made observations and later confirmed that the petitioner complied with the observations, have been examined, and further no documents in support of the charges/allegations were furnished to the petitioner while issuing him the charge sheet dtd. 1/10/2020, except directing the petitioner to submit explanation within seven days therefrom, and no opportunity of being heard, and no list of witnesses on behalf of Bank, and no opportunity of examining/crossexamining of witnesses have been afforded and therefore the enquiry is vitiated due to non-following of the procedure prescribed under the Regulations. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had made a representation dtd. 25/11/2021 against the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary authority, and that representation was treated as an Appeal and the same was rejected, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner's case right from the process of issuance of charge sheet to the enquiry and to the rejection of representation by misconstruing it as an Appeal petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not seeking re-appreciation of evidence, but only seeks a de novo enquiry with a direction to the respondent-Bank authorities to follow the process stipulated in the Regulations by furnishing the documents being relied on by the Bank in support of the charges and furnish a list of witnesses on behalf of the Bank, and afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, apart from the opportunity of examining/cross examining the witnesses. Learned counsel relies on S.C. Girotra vs. United Commercial bank (UCO Bank),1995 Supp (3) SCC 212.