( 1 ) THE order of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Syndicate bank dated 20-2-1996, and the order of the General Manager dated 23-3-1992, are under challenged in this writ petition and a writ of certiorari is sought to quash both these orders. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner died. Thereafter, by order in WPMP No. 22228 of 1999 dated 9-11-1999, his wife and both his sons were brought on record as his legal representatives.

( 2 ) FACTS, in brief, are that, while working as the Divisional Manager of the respondent-bank at Patna, the petitioner was issued charge memo dated 24-11-1990 for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him during the period, between 11-7-1983 and 3-6-1989, while functioning as the Divisional Manager at the Divisional office, Hyderabad (Rural Division ). The relevant portion of the charge memo reads thus:

"following irregularities are observed in the matter of recommending/sanctioning of the said loans: (a) That in their letter No. 3636 dated 2. 6. 1987, HO, CPFMO had agreed to consider the proposal only if the loanees are persons whose salaries are routed through the Bank and employed in companies who are dealing with the Bank. However, while informing M/s BMR Estates and Builders, the sponsors of the scheme vide your letter No. 2924 dated 20. 6. 1987 that bank is agreeable to their proposal dated 30. 4. 1987, the terms stipulated by Head Office as stated above were not incorporated in the said letter. (b) Head Office had also in their letter 3636 dated 2. 6. 1987 directed to recommend viable proposals to them for their clearance. However, this stipulation was not adhered to by the branch as a result of which loans were continued to be sanctioned/arranged/released at branch level itself without seeking clearance of head Office and this fact was also within your knowledge. (c) Specific sanction letter or clear cut guidelines such as per party limit, validity of the limit, margin to be maintained, interest rate, eligibility criteria were not conveyed to the branch. (d) Zonal Office vide their letter No. 6467 dated 28. 12. 1987 had permitted Divisional office (Rural) to approved the branch action in having arranged the loans, subject to having followed all the norms. However, though the norms as stipulated were not followed/adhered to while releasing the loans by this branch you ratified/ approved the branch action in arranging the said loans vide your letter No. 10947 dated 23. 1988. It is now observed that a number of complaints have been received from certain employees of the Government departments to the effect that loans have been arranged for a higher amount than the one agreed to and by between them earlier. In addition to this the complaints also relate to the following matter: (a) that the sponsors have not registered the house plots in their names in all the cases. (b) That title deeds have not been conveyed to them (c) That in a few cases, the plots which have been registered in their names, are not the ones promised to them earlier by the sponsors. (d) That the actual cost/value of the plots are around Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- only, whereas the loans are arranged for rs. 8,000/- to 12,000/-That as a result of these complaints, repayments are not forthcoming towards a large number of loan accounts since the letters of undertaking given by the loanees to their respective employers, authorizing deduction of monthly instalments along with interest from their salaries towards credit of their respective loan accounts, have been countermanded/withdrawn by the said complaints. "

( 3 ) AN enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of all the charges, except to the limited extent that complaints had been received from certain employees of Government departments to the effect that loans had been arranged for a higher amount than the one agreed to between them earlier. The enquiry officer held that, while the complaints had al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document