In the matters of banking, the responsibility on the person is on the higher side and devotion to duty is to be utmost. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every Officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion, and diligence and becoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from functioning of every officer/employee of the bank.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation for the respondents, Andhra Bank through its Chairman and Managing Director and its authorities.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of dismissal from service dated 30.04.2010 and the appellate order dated 31.12.2010 dismissing the petitioner’s departmental appeal. The prayer as made in the writ petition reads as under :

“…..to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus or any other writ by declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 order of dismissal from Banks service vide Lr. No.1603/20/V/T976/2/133 dated 30.04.2010 inflicted against the petitioner and not entertaining the appeal dated 29.07.2010 field by him against the order of dismissal as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Rural Development Officer Andhra Bank with all consequential benefits and back wages and grant such other relief or relief as this as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in circumstances of the case.”

3. The petitioner joined the services of Andhra Bank as Rural Credit Officer Scale-1 Officer on 16.04.1987 and was promoted as Scale-II Officer in July 2002 as Deputy Manager (Rural Development).

4. While serving the said Bank, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet vide Lr.No.666/20/V/T-976/2/CS/21, dated 20.04.2009, containing the charge of committing serious irregularities in the appraisal of PAGCC Loan proposals at Ravinuthala Branch. The charge was that the petitioner failed to discharge his duties with diligence and devotion in appraising 6 PAGCC loan proposals and making recommendations for sanction without making field visits to confirm the ownership of land, extent of land under cultivation and crops being raised, which acts of the petitioner exposed the bank to a possible undue loss of Rs.4.15 lakh, constituting misconduct under Regulations 3(1) and 24 of the Andhra Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’),

5. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet denying the allegations and submitted that he had appraised all the six PAGCC loans and recommended for sanction after making field visits, but inadvertently not recorded the date of visit in the applications. He appraised the loans and recommended for sanction basing on the Mandal Revenue Officer (for short ‘MRO’) certificates brought by the then Manager Mr. Jalaramaiah. He believed the version of the Manager and believed the documents to be genuine and never doubted him. There is no hard and fast rule that only Rural Development Officer (RDO) has to go for verification of land documents/Pattadar Passbooks/Revenue certificates. He used to go once in a week from his base branch Ongole for appraisal of the agricultural loans. He further submitted that as per the latest position, the CCATL loans of Nakka Srinivasa Rao and Paleru Sujata are since closed. As per the letter of Tahsildar, Korisapadu Mandal dated 12.11.2008, the name of Marriboina Venkata Rao is not there in the list and as such, the revenue pattadar passbook of M. Venkata Rao may not be a fake one.

6. The respondent bank conducted enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23.01.2010 to the disciplinary authority with the finding that the charges leveled against the petitioner in respect of 4 PAGCC loans were proved. The copy of the enquiry officer’s report was forwarded to the petitioner on 08.03.2010, against which the petitioner preferred his submissions/explanation vide letter dated 03.04.2010.

7. The disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of dismissal from bank service vide order dated 30.04.2010. The petitioner’s departmental appeal was dismissed on 31.12.2010 by the Chief General Manager & Ap