BHAGIRATH KESHRI Vs. JHARKHAND GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing penalty order dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure 10) passed by General Manager and Competent Authority as well as the appellate order dated 12.02.2016 (Annexure 12) passed by the Chairman and Appellate Authority and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to upgrade the petitioner on the post of Scale II Officer.

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that initially the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Bank to the post of Branch Manager Scale I Officer on 08.10.1982 and while continuing as such a memo of charge dated 24.10.2013 was served upon him for certain irregularities in sanctioning/disbursement of loans and advances at Kiriburu Branch during his tenure as Branch Manager, to which, petitioner replied vide letter dated 07.12013 denying all the allegations. Being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, in which, enquiry officer was appointed, who after enquiry submitted his report basing on which, the disciplinary authority imposed the impugned penalty of "downgrade of Scale from MMG-II to JMG-I and fitment of pay at the initial of JMG-I i.e. Rs. 23,700/- till superannuation with cumulative effect" under Regulation No. 391(b) of Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal but the appellate authority confirmed the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceeding through his defence representative but some important documents being demanded by the petitioner for his defence were neither provided on the pretext that the same were privileged documents and some of them are not in custody of the presenting officer. Furthermore, the request of the petitioner to examine some relevant borrowers in the enquiry so that he can prove his innocence regarding the allegations/charges of non-existence of some borrowers was out-rightly rejected on the ground that outsiders are not allowed in the departmental enquiry, which has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. On the contrary in the same respondent-bank in other cases the delinquents were allowed to present the borrowers as defence witnesses but the petitioner has been denied an opportunity to examine such witness/borrower, as such the entire enquiry proceedings as well as findings recorded by the enquiry officer are ultra-virus, mala fide and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that most of the charges are related to the alleged transactions made six years back and during the course of departmental enquiry, M.W. 1 has categorically stated in his depositions as well as cross-examination that when the petitioner joined the Kiriburu Branch as Branch Manager, there was NIL NPA and subsequent slippage of NPA, if any, he is solely responsible not the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no second show cause notice or opportunity of personal hearing was provided prior to awarding harsh punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that actually the disciplinary authority pre-decided to punish the petitioner with major penalty, which reflects from the intimation letter for holding enquiry, wherein it has been written that "in the capacity as Competent Authority, has decided to institute disciplinary proceedings against you for major penalty alleged to have committed by you .....". It has been submitted that the petitioner through his defence representative has altogether submitted 82 defence exhibits, to show that all shops/activities were existence to negate the charge no. 1 alleging therein that shop/business were non-existent and borrowers are not traceable. Further, the petitioner has also submitted the written statement of borrowers, wherein they have categorically stated that they have taken loans for different purpose and they are living separately and they do not belong to same family to negate charge no. 5, wherein it is alleged that undue financing was extended to more than one number of families for the same trade/business/shop. But, brushing aside these clinching piece of evidence, impugned order of punishment has been passed. It has further been submitted that only on the basis of presumption, which has got no rational nexus between the allegation and its presumption, harsh punishment has been awarded.