High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA, DIBYENDU BHUSAN DUTTA
DIPANKAR SENGUPTA - Appellant
Versus
UNITED BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
F. M. A. T 3089 Of 1992
Decided On : 03/11/1998
BANKING - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - MISCONDUCT - INTERPRETATION OF CONDUCT REGULATIONS - APPLICATION OF MIND BY DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - CONSULTATION WITH CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - POWER OF HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Assistant Manager and Deputy General Manager of a bank, were charged with misconduct for processing loan proposals in violation of banking norms and guidelines. An enquiry officer found that most of the charges were not proved and that there was no evidence of motive or mala fide on the part of the petitioners. However, the disciplinary authority, relying on the findings of the enquiry officer, imposed a major penalty of reduction of basic pay by two stages. The petitioners challenged the order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the alleged procedural lapses and lack of supervision on the part of the petitioners did not constitute misconduct. The Court also held that the disciplinary authority failed to apply his mind to the findings of the enquiry officer and that the consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission was not justified as there was no vigilance angle to the case. The Court set aside the impugned orders.
Issues: 1. Whether the alleged procedural lapses and lack of supervision on the part of the petitioners constituted misconduct? 2. Whether the disciplinary authority applied his mind to the findings of the enquiry officer? 3. Whether the consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the alleged procedural lapses and lack of supervision on the part of the petitioners did not constitute misconduct. The Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. J. Ahmed and Virendra Prasad v. Union of India, which held that mere error of judgment or negligence does not constitute misconduct unless it is coupled with ill motive or mala fide. 2. The Court held that the disciplinary authority failed to apply his mind to the findings of the enquiry officer. The Court noted that the disciplinary authority had merely reproduced the charges against the petitioners without considering the findings of the enquiry officer that most of the charges were not proved. 3. The Court held that the consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission was not justified as there was no vigilance angle to the case. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank, which held that consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission is only necessary in cases involving a vigilance angle.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders.
( 1 ) THESE two appeals filed by the writ petitioners in the aforementioned cases although arose out of an order of the learned trial Judge refusing to pass an interim order, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petitions and the appeals were heard together.
( 2 ) THE writ petitioners Dipankar Sengupta and Chittaranjan Samanta were posted as Assistant Manager and Deputy General Manager. Both the Writ Petitioners were charge-sheeted in January, 1991 for commission of alleged misconduct, which is to the following effect: Articles of Charge No. 1 During your tenure as Deputy Manager (Advance) of Calcutta Branch, you had processed, jointly with the Asstt. Manager (Advance), proposal for sanction of Bills Discount Limits of Rs. 25. 00 lacs each to 18 companies which are directly or indirectly associated/connected with Hemraj Mahabir Prasad (HMP) Group enjoying substantial credit facilities with the Bank, as per An-nexure 'a' hereto. While processing the above proposals, you had failed to adhere to the usual banking norms and Head Office guidelines/instructions and the credit appraisal was inadequate and perfunctory. You had also recommended the above proposals for sanction by the Chief Manager, knowing it fully well that the sanction of the above credit limits to the aforesaid parties was beyond his discretionary powers in terms of Head Office Circular No. CM/dis/062/189/pm-78/88 dated October 25, 1988. Besides you had failed to secure compliance with the stipulations mentioned in the processing notes and to incorporate in the sanction letters the clauses requiring submission of statements of stocks and book debts by the borrowing companies. Thus, you had failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, devotion and diligence and thereby committed a misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of the UBI Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Articles of Charge No. 2 During your tenure as Deputy Manager (Advance), Calcutta Branch, you had failed to notice through inspection of the units and by making proper enquiries about their business activities that the bills discounted under the B/d limits sanctioned to them as shown in Annexure 'a' hereto, purporting to represent trade transactions, were prima facie in the nature of accommodation bills. Thus, you had acted in a manner which was unbecoming of an officer employee of the Bank and thereby committed a misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3 (1) read with UBI Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Articles of Charge No. 3 During your tenure as Deputy Manager (Advance), Calcutta Branch, you had recommended clean overdrafts of Rs. 25. 00 lacs in the current deposit accounts of each of the 12 companies mentioned in Annexure 'b' hereto, knowing fully well that the Chief Manager (in scale IV) of the Branch was not empowered to sanction such overdrafts in terms of H. O. Circular No. O and M/dis/ 062/189/om-78/88 dated October 25, 1988. These overdrafts were allowed without obtaining any documents and R. B. I. Cheques/pay orders for Rs. 25. 00 lacs each were issued in favour of Indian Bank. The unauthorised overdrafts so allowed by the Chief Manager at your recommendation were subsequently adjusted on different dates by discounting bills (which were prima facie in the nature of accommodation bills) under the B/d limits sanctioned to the above companies. In addition to the above, you did not ensure the end-use of funds lent to the aforesaid companies. Thus, you had failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank and thereby contravened Regulation 3 (1) of the UBI Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Articles of Charge No. 4 During your tenure as Dy. Manager (Advance), Calcutta Branch, you had processed, jointly with the Asstt. Manager (Advance) a proposal for a Bills Discount (D. A. Bil
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.