Back
2003 Supreme(Kar) 713
Karnataka High Court
Krishnamoorthy Beliya B. - Appellant
Versus
Syndicate Bank, Manipal - Respondent
Decided On : 08-26-03
W.P. : 7294 of 2000
P.S.RAJGOPAL, RADESH PRABHU, TUKURAM S.PAL
Headnote:Legality of enquiry proceedings
SYNDICATE BANK OFFICER EMPLOYEES (DISCIPLINE & APPEAL) REGULATIONS, 1976 AND SYNDICATE BANK OFFICER EMPLOYEES (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS, 1976 - Regulations 3 & 24 & Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 -Some of the documents relied by the enquiry officer denied to the petitioner as not available and some on the ground of privilege -petitioner to prove how the non-supply of documents sought affected his case -non-furnishing of enquiry report submitted to the Disciplinary Authority -report not relied -no need to provide -documents relied by the delinquent officer not considered -the principle of preponderance of probability applies and strict rules of evidence need not be observed -Appellate Authority concurring with the view of the Disciplinary Authority -no reasons have to be assigned.
[H. L. Dattu, J.] - In disciplinary enquiry proceedings, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the material available on record reasonably supports the conclusion and the findings of the enquiry officer that the delinquent official is guilty of the charges, the High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to review the entire evidence on record to arrive at an independent finding and then again the High Court is expected not to enter into adequacy or sufficiency of evidence, since in departmental enquires, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
Case Referred : AIR 1996 SC 320.
( 1 ) PETITIONER was working as Manager in the espondent-Syndicate Bank. While he was working in that capacity in Gundlupet Branch of the respondent-Bank, he was served with a charge memo dated January 29, 1999 containing charges of misconduct as Manager, bannimantap Branch, Mysore, during the period April 30, 1994 to May 28, 1994. The allegation in the charge memo is as under: "charge-sheet vide Regulation 6 of the syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Whereas, it is proposed to hold an enquiry c against you under Regulation 6 of the syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976; and whereas, the Articles of Charges and statement of Imputations of Misconduct in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held are mentioned here below. Now, therefore, you are hereby directed to 15 submit your written statement of defence if any, within 15 days of receipt of this charge-sheet showing cause as to why regular Departmental Proceedings should not be initiated against you and appropriate 20 action should not be taken against you. Articles of charge that you were functioning as Manager of bannimantap Branch, Mysore, during the 25 period between June 30, 1992 and June 12, 1996 and that while in your said position by misusing your official position during the period April 30, 1994 to May 28, 1994 you signed and released six loans for amounts 30 aggregating to Rs. 1. 50 lakhs in the name of six persons to unduly accommodate yourself and Smt. Sulochana Murthy, the then Clerk, Bannimantap Branch, Mysore, and/or others well- known to you, without 35 proper pre-sanction appraisal and post- sanction follow-up. At present amounts aggregating to Rs. 2,05,716/- are stuck to the books of the bank proving difficult of recovery. The 40 full/more details of the above are furnished in the statement of imputation of misconduct on your part appended here below. By your above acts you failed to discharge ,. your duties with utmost integrity and honesty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of the status of the Bank Officer and thereby contravened Regulation 3 (1) read with regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer 50 employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Statement of Imputations of Misconduct on your part: that you were functioning as Manager at our Bannimantap Branch, Mysore during the period between June 30, 1992 and June 12, 1996, and that while functioning in your position as such, you sanctioned and arranged 6 loans for amount aggregating to rs. 1. 50 lakhs in the names of six persons, the details of which are furnished in annexure enclosed. Following circumstances appear on record in respect of the above circumstances: 1. All the SB accounts of the borrowers were introduced by Smt. Sulochana murthy, Clerk of the branch. The loans were sanctioned within 2 to 6 days of the opening of SB accounts without proper processing of the loan proposals.
( 2 ) THERE is nothing on record to indicate that any enquiries were made to ascertain the antecedents of the borrowers/sureties and their reported business.
( 3 ) BORROWERS/sureties creditworthiness was not ascertained.
( 4 ) THE loan proceeds were released to the sb accounts of the borrowers and post-sanction follow-up made if any is not on record.
( 5 ) IN the loan ledger folio of loan a/c. OSL 29/94 in the name of Sri Ravindra Setty, the name of Smt. Sulochana Murthy, Clerk with telephone number is recorded.
( 6 ) ON October 6, 1994 Smt. Sulochana murthy, Clerk remitted Rs. 1,000/- to SB a/c. No. 5990 of Sri T. Vishwanath through sri C. Devaraj, Pigmy Agent of the branch and the said amount was credited to OSL 20/94 of Sri T. Vishwanath by debiting to his SB a/c. No. 5990 on the same day.
( 7 ) THE credit vouchers of Rs. 1,000/- each dated July 2, 1994 for credit of S B account nos. 6011 of Sri R. P. Shivakumar, 6032 of sri A. Krishna and 6033 of Sri Ravindra shetty i. e. , borrowers under OSL CGC 23/1994, 28/1994 and 29/19
