Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANOOP V. MOHTA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
R.M. Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
Bank of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1620 of 2006
Decided On : 25-10-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.D. Bhat.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.S. Pai with Mr. Anand Pai, Mr. A.K. Gopalan, Haresh Mehta & Co.
Headnote:Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976-Regulations 3(1), 20 and 24-Constitution of India, Article 226-C ompulsory retirement.-Since charges of misconduct levelled against employee are sufficiently proved in disciplinary enquiry hence no illegality in compulsorily retiring employee.
The petitioner was holding the post of a Branch Manager of the Bank. Undisputedly this position required diligence, honesty and responsibility and strict adherence to the rules and regulations and the following of prudence banking norms in discharge of his official duties. There was sufficient material for the respondents to come to a conclusion that the acts of commission and omission as complained, demonstrate that the petitioner had failed to honour the obligations which were attached to his official position.
The action on the part of the respondents thus cannot be faulted. Once the bank officer acts beyond his authority in breach of the bank`s regulations, it is a case of loss of confidence in the officer by the bank. In such a situation, it would be a futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority removing the officer from service which is preceded by an enquiry. The conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority are based on evidence and are well within the framework of the facts and in law. The totality of the evidence clearly indicate that the charges against the petitioner are proved. (2006) 10 SCC 572-Relied.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Judicial review.-High Court in exercise of power under Article 226, has no power to reappreciate evidence and come to a different conclusion than one recorded by disciplinary authority.
The scope of interference in the disciplinary matters is very narrow. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, High Court does not wield a power to reappreciate evidence and come to a different conclusion than the one recorded by the disciplinary authority.
The scope of the jurisdiction is to examine whether the findings as recorded by the disciplinary authority are of a nature, that could not have been, ever reached on the evidence which has come on record in the disciplinary proceedings and further to examine whether the principles of law on fairness in the enquiry process namely adherence to the principles of natural justice and the rules and regulations are followed.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Bank of India Officer Employees Regulations, Regulations 3(1), 21 and 24-Compulsory retirement.-Since employer/ Bank has lost confidence in its employee hence judicial review not permissible.
G.S. KULKARNI, J.
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 17 December 2004 by which the Respondents imposed on the Petitioner a major penalty of 'compulsory retirement' in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. This order is confirmed by the Appellate Authority as also by a further order of the Reviewing Authority, which are also challenged.
2. In the year 2003 the Petitioner was working with Respondent No. 1 as a Branch Manager with the Agardanda branch, in Alibag District. The Disciplinary Authority issued a memorandum dated 30 October 2003 alongwith statement of charges alleging that the Petitioner has failed to discharge duties with utmost integrity, devotion and diligence and the Petitioner has failed to protect the interest of the bank and if the charges are proved would amount to breach of Regulations 3(1), 20(4) and 24 of Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (for short “the said Regulations”). The statement of allegations contained two Articles of charges. Charge No. 1 pertained to five loan accounts. Without referring to the intricate details, the charges can be summarized as under:-
Charge I
(A) Loan account of Mr. Narendra B. Hedulkar:-
(i) The Account of Shri Narendra B. Hedulkar was not eligible to be considered for loan under the KVIC scheme who was sanctioned loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for a Dhaba.
(ii) He was already sanctioned a loan for ration shop which itself was running out of order. The Petitioner was in full knowledge of this fact. The Petitioner's actions were deliberate to accommodate the borrower and give undue advantage of Government subsidy. Further, the amount was not disbursed in stages but full amount was transferred to the saving bank account of the borrower and end use was not verified. Stale quotation of Rs.3.17 lakhs dated 22 March 2001 was considered in the proposal. The project of Dhaba never took of for which loan was granted.
(iii) After sanctioning of loan, it was reported that the Petitioner had borrowed Rs.40,000/- on 18 October 2001 from the said borrower which was not repaid.
(iv) The loan account had become NPA and the chances of recovery are negligible.
(B) Loan account of Mr. Rushikant Dongarikar:
(i) This account holder was a recipient of earlier loan on 15 January 1998. The account was irregular which was got closed by the Petitioner on 15 April 2002 by a cash deposit of Rs.22,740/- and granted fresh loans aggregating Rs.2.5 lakhs on 21 May 2002 (Rs.1 lakh for spare part business and Rs.1.5 lakhs for cable network). It was stated that the quotations in support of the loan application were not verified and the end use was not checked, credit assessment was not done properly. The accounts were grossly out of order and have turned NPA.
(ii) The Petitioner had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from this borrower as hand loan before sanction of the loan and subsequently Rs.20,000/- was borrowed after 15 days and the Petitioner was yet to repay the entire amount of Rs.30,000/-. The charge stated that the modus operandi was clear.
(C) Loan account of Mr. Avinash Vithal Khot:
(i) Full loan amount was disbursed by crediting saving bank account of the borrower instead of making direct payment to the supplier which was against the norms of the bank. Credentials of the person were not checked as the other relatives were NPA. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was diverted on 21 March 2002 to close the NPA account from the disbursed loan amount when the loan was actually disbursed for spare parts business. The quotations supporting the loan application were also not verified. The end use was also not verified. The borrower was never engaged in the activities of the spare parts.
(D) Loan account of Mr. Sujan K. Birje:
(i) The loan pertained to trading in imitation jewellery. The business premises were not mentioned in the proposal. The amount was directly credited to the saving bank account instea
