JAI PRAKASH EKKA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dtd. 7/12/2016 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner was dismissed on being found guilty. Further, he prays to quash the Appellate Order dtd. 31/3/2017 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the order of penalty is confirmed.

(2.) Undisputed facts of this case are that petitioner joined Bank of India as Probationary Officer on 24/9/1987 as Junior Management Grade-I. He was promoted as Middle Management Grade-II on 1/5/1998. He was further promoted to Middle Management Grade-III on 1/12/2007. After he was transferred from Ghaghra Branch to Mumbai Service Branch some irregularities was detected for which, a memorandum was issued on 11/5/2015 and the petitioner was asked to explain. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 6/6/2015, thereafter on 31/12/2015 the disciplinary authority issued article of charges related to lack of due diligence in sanctioning loan and allowing cash withdrawal from cash credit account and failure to maintain the norms of the Bank. The petitioner submitted a written statement on 7/1/2016 denying the charges. Thereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated. On 3/3/2016 a preliminary hearing was made where the petitioner pleaded innocence and the proceeding continued. After submission of the inquiry report on 14/10/2016, the disciplinary authority issued show cause, which was replied on 26/10/2016 by the petitioner and lastly, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal against the order of punishment which was also dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as the successor Branch Managers failed in discharging their duties in the matter of follow-up in the event of loan becoming NPA and for the failure of the successor Branch Manager, the petitioner has been targeted and punished. The petitioner in the process of disbursement of loan has followed all the prescribed norms, practice and procedure. The allegation levelled against him are unfounded and baseless. He further submitted that most of the charges are nonest and none of the allegation against the petitioner was established in the enquiry. The decision of the Inquiry Authority, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority is bad and improper.