Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 1415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J
Bali Ram Prasad Singh, Son of Ram Pravesh Singh - Appellant
Vs.
General Manager (H R) Cum Reviewing Authority Bank Of India - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13029 of 2009
Decided On : 27-11-2018
Chandra Bhushan Singh, Adv., Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Headnote:
Service Law – Dismissal – Major penalty proceeding was initiated against petitioner for his alleged acts of misconduct while working as Branch Manager of Bank – Primary duty of Manager to see that each loan account is properly opened in ledger and amounts are debited – In course of departmental inquiry, petitioner was given an opportunity to engage his defence representative and to participate in inquiry proceedings which he accordingly did – Inquiry Officer has applied his mind to entire materials available on record, has discussed various exhibits of managements as well as defence and then recorded his observations with regard to proof of charges – Petitioner was given opportunity to engage his defence representative and had been allowed to participate in inquiry – No violation of principles of natural justice or violation of principles of fairness in holding departmental inquiry could be noticed by Court – Jurisdiction of High Court is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law of procedural errors resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice – Writ application dismissed. (Paras 25 to 33)
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ application has been preferred invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court for the following reliefs:
"(A) For issuance as "Mandamus" of an appropriate writ/order or direction to the respondents for quashing the dismissal order of petitioner by respondents-authorities (i) Penalty order Ref. No. ZO/C.M./DA/VIG-166/22 dated 30.06.2008 of Respondent no. 3 as Annexure-5. (ii) Ref. No.ZO/PAT/A/VIG-166/349 dated 16.12.2008 Appellate order or Respondent No. 2 as Annexure-5(A) and (iii) Ref. No. PAK, RA-070 dated 20.05.009 Review order of Respondent no. 1 as Annexure-5(b) are illegal, arbitrary and malafide.
(B) For issuance as 'Certiorari' of an appropriate writ/order or direction to the Respondents for reinstate the petitioner on their post with due promotion and other consequential benefits which is entitled as per Rule of the Bank.
(C)For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction to the Respondents to restrain from the violation of Article 20(3), 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(D) For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction to the respondents as required at the time of hearing and other reliefs as sought of judicature with cost."
2. Facts of the case
I. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was posted as Manager in in Kushila Branch under the then Gaya region in the Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent-Bank"), a F.I.R. came to be lodged on 16.08.2000 against the petitioner and others alleging financial irregularities committed by the petitioner. The said case being Magadh University P.S. Case No. 51/2000 was investigated but according to the petitioner since no material could be collected against him to connect him with the offence alleged in the F.I.R., he was exonerated by the investigating agency. Annexure-1 to the writ application is the report-2 of the Superintendent of Police, Gaya and Annexure-1(A) is the supervision note dated 24.08.2000, 31.08.2000. In the writ application though the Annexure-1 and 1(A) are said to be the photocopies of the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, but as stated above, the two Annexures referred above are different from what have been described in the body of the writ application.
II. Petitioner was suspended during the ongoing investigation and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was served with a memorandum enclosing articles of charges dated 16.11.2000 (Annexure-2 to the writ application). Altogether IX (nine) charges were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was exonerated from charge no. III, VII, VIII and IX as those were not proved. Charge no. I, II, IV, V & VI for which the petitioner was found guilty are stated hereunder for a ready reference:
"Article-I
You had sanctioned and disbursed loans under crop loans, IRDP and PMRY loans without property applications, without identifying the borrowers, without obtaining property security documents and the loan amounts were disbursed through bogus firms and thus fraudulently misappropriated Bank's funds to the extent of Rs. 15015 lacs exposing the Bank to serious loss. The quotations and bills obtained in these accounts are without any dates and no pre or post-sanction inspections were conducted. There were unauthenticated alterations of the activities and amount in the IRDP loan applications. In 6 accounts, no documents were traceable. The details of these 42 loan accounts along with the irregularities committed by you and the financial loss or Rs. 5,15,988.00 plus uncharged interest suffered by the Bank are given in Annexure-"A" in the Statement of Allegations.
Article-II
You had sanctioned and disbursed loans in 8 accounts without opening the accounts in the ledger in violation of Bank's norms and procedures as given in Annexure "B" in the Statement of Allegations. You had sanctioned and disbursed loans in 21 accounts, where only the first postings were m
