SAHADEO CHOUDHARY Vs. JHARKHAND GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition can be disposed of on basis of short issue which appears to be contested between the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, who was the Branch Manager under the respondent-Jharkhand Gramin Bank, was served with a show cause-cum-punishment notice dated 19.3.2013, which is at Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereunder it was indicated that in respect of certain loan accounts, the petitioner had exceeded his delegated authority to sanction a particular amount and therefore, it was proposed to recover Rs. 2,61,225/- from his retirement benefits on superannuation as a special case, if he makes a voluntary admission of guilt in response to this show cause-cum-punishment notice. Therefore, it was indicated that in case the petitioner accepts his guilt, the respondent authority proposes to recover the amount in question as minor penalty and not to impose other major penalty as a special case done under Regulation 39.1(iv) of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. The said notice was issued about 11 days before the impending retirement of the petitioner on 31.3.2013. The petitioner in his reply dated 23.3.2013, however, conditionally accepted his guilt by raising certain defence in respect of one loan account relating to Nitish Kumar Karmali being Account No. 10123210000002. According to him, show cause-cum-punishment notice in relation to the aforesaid account was not proper as the same loan was sanctioned by the then Branch Manager namely P.K. Biswas on 4.12.2006 and not on 1.9.2011 as alleged by him. Therefore, according to petitioner, he is not willing to accept his guilt so far as amount of Rs. 1,16,170.00 is concerned in relation to the aforesaid account of one Nitish Kumar Karmali. On such eventuality, the respondent, however, choose to initiate a departmental proceeding under Regulations 45(3) and (4) of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition dated 31.3.2013 for the entire loan accounts in respect of which he was served with a show cause-cum-punishment dated 19.3.2013.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that condition of show cause notice requires that the petitioner should accept his guilt in respect of the defaulting loan accounts in respect of which he has sanctioned the loan beyond his permissible limit as Branch Manager. Since, conditionally the petitioner has accepted his guilt, a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner vide letter dated 31.3.2013, Annexure-5 to the writ petition.