Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JYOTI SARAN, J.
Rabindra Nath, Son of Late Krishna Deo Pandit - Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2082 of 2016
Decided on : 03-04-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bindhyachal Singh and Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Advocate
The lack of evidence to support serious charges, the non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority, and the lack of reasons for rejecting the petitioner's explanation were central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Reckless Disbursement - Disciplinary Proceedings - Charges under 13 allegations - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the charges under the 13 allegations and primarily focused on three charges: reckless disbursement of loans contrary to instructions, disbursement of multiple loans to a single family, and disbursing loans with mala-fide intention for obtaining pecuniary gains. The court highlighted the lack of evidence to support the serious charge of obtaining pecuniary gains and the procedural lapses in the other charges. The court also emphasized the non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority and the lack of reasons for rejecting the petitioner's explanation. The court quashed the punishment order and reinstated the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Branch Manager, faced disciplinary action for alleged reckless disbursement of loans and other charges. The petitioner argued that the allegations were based on no evidence and that the punishment lacked application of mind. The petitioner also highlighted the vagueness of the charges and the lack of evidence for serious allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges lacked evidence and the punishment order lacked application of mind. The court observed that the petitioner had been put on notice for the alleged reckless disbursement of loans in the past, and the lack of evidence to support the serious charges. The court also noted the lack of reasons for rejecting the petitioner's explanation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of evidence to support the serious charges, the procedural lapses, and the non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the serious charge of obtaining pecuniary gains was without evidence and incapable of being upheld. The court also emphasized that every negligent act or procedural lapse cannot be construed as misconduct unless the results are disastrous and the object is malicious. The court highlighted the lack of reasons for rejecting the petitioner's explanation and the non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority.
Final Decision: The court quashed the punishment order and reinstated the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
Jyoti Saran, J.
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the memo of charge dated 3.5.2011 impugned at Annexure-13, the enquiry report dated 31.12.2012 impugned at Annexure-22, the order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 12.5.2015 impugned at Annexure-25 together with the administrative order impugned at Annexure-26 and the appellate order confirming the punishment dated 10/12.11.2015 impugned at Annexure-28.
2. With the consent of the parties this writ petition has been heard with a view to its final disposal at the stage of Admission itself.
3. Facts of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner was appointed as a Branch Manager (Scale-I) at Rasulpur Branch (Saran) of the respondent Bank on 2.6.1983. The matter relates to the period when the petitioner was posted at the Bheldi branch of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"), where the petitioner joined on 9.2.2005 and remained until January, 2011. The posting order is present at Annexure-1 and while the petitioner was asked to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Branch Manager but he was not conferred with the powers to grant loan except loan against deposits. Certain instructions were issued by "the Bank" as regarding sanction of loan which is present at Annexure-2 on 12.8.2005 and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, in partial modification of the earlier orders restraining him from sanctioning loans, the petitioner was permitted to sanction loan for S.K.C.C. and M.S.T.P. after getting approval from the headquarters on case to case basis.
4. That there was no complaint against the functioning of the petitioner as the Branch Manager of Bheldi Branch is manifest from the letter of appreciation issued under the signature of the Regional Manager dated 28.5.2007 present at Annexure-4 and the letter dated 21.4.2009 present at Annexure-7. It is considering the appreciated work of the petitioner that his financial powers were restored on 3.12.2009 vide order present at Annexure-8. For the reasons best known the financial powers which was restored with the petitioner were again seized under the orders of the Regional Manager dated 8.3.2010 present at Annexure-9. The petitioner, however, was allowed to grant loans against the deposits or deposit like L.I.C., K.V.P., N.S.C. etc. The position was reiterated in the letter dated 10.5.2010 at Annexure-10. While on one hand restrictions were issued, on the other hand by letter dated 21.9.2010 the petitioner was charged with not distributing loans to the satisfaction of the superiors. In fact the petitioner was cautioned against serious action if he failed to improve the situation.
5. Strangely while the Regional Manager was issuing orders restricting financial powers of the petitioner, alongside the petitioner was being charged with not making serious efforts in extending loans. In between the situation, the petitioner was promoted from Scale-I officer to Scale-II officer vide order passed by the Regional Manager dated 30.10.2010 present at Annexure-12 and was instructed to join at the Saharkola branch of the respondent Bank in the district of Siwan. A transfer order accompanies the promotion order which is dated 1.3.2011 and is a part of Annexure-12. Much after the promotion of the petitioner and his consequent posting at the Siwan Branch of the Bank that on 3.5.2011 he was served with a memorandum of charge listing 13 allegations against the petitioner, all related to grant of loans in contravention of the Rules and Regulations of the Branch, a copy of which is impugned at Annexure-13. Since the matter related to the period while the petitioner was posted as Scale-I Officer at Bheldi branch in the district of Saran, he sought permission for inspection of the documents vide Annexure-14 series and was permitted thus, by letter dated 3.6.2011. The petitioner demanded copies of the documents for prepar
