The Disciplinary Authority cannot differ with the Inquiry Authority's findings without giving the charged officer an opportunity to explain his position regarding the documents relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority.

Arindam Sinha, J.

The writ petitioner was posted and served as Manager in the Debaipur Branch of Bank of India with effect from 13th January, 1997 to 15th November, 1998. By a letter dated 19th April, 2001 the Bank decided to proceed against the writ petitioner under Regulation 6 of its Officers’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 in respect of acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the writ petitioner while posted as aforesaid. The charges notified to the writ petitioner were as follows:-

1. That, violating Bank’s lending norms, the petitioner had sanctioned an additional cash, credit limit of Rs.70,000/- to the borrower M/s Sephali Cycle Store, proprietor Shri Tushar Kanti Mondal and he, with an ulterior motive, enabled the said borrower Shri Tushar Kanti Mondal proprietor of M/s Sephali Cycle Store and also the borrower Shri Sanjib Kumar Mondal (PMRY Loanee) to divert the bank’s loan amount disbursed to them through S/B A/c no.3093 of Shri B.N.Pramanik for the purpose other than for which it was sanctioned.

2. That, with intent to get undue pecuniary gain for himself, he dishonestly submitted false claims for travelling expenses to the total amount of Rs.950/- only in respect of his official journey claimed by him to have been undertaken by Auto on 21.02.97, 28.02.97, 06.03.97, 07.03.97, 21.05.98 and by Horsecart on 08.01.98 and 16.07.98 and got it sanctioned by the Competent Authority on the basis of his aforesaid false declarations whereas he had actually used and travelled to the places on bank’s Motor Cycle on aforesaid dates, thereby causing pecuniary loss to the bank to the extent of Rs.950/- only.

3. That, violating bank’s lending norms, he unduly accommodated ten PMRY borrowers to the detriment of the bank’s interest in as much as he disbursed the part loan to them through suppliers without mentioning the details of goods/articles to be supplied by the suppliers to the borrowers, in the Delivery Orders issued by him to the suppliers and without obtaining quotation from suppliers in Nine loan A/cs………….all the ten loan A/cs.were out of order and the business activities for which the loan was sanctioned had stopped in five loan A/cs. out of aforesaid ten loan A/cs. and the bank was likely to incur pecuniary loss to the extent of Rs.2,69,372/- (approximate).

4. That, violating bank’s norms for lending, he unduly accommodated 24 PMRY borrowers, to the detriment of the bank’s interest in as much as he sanctioned and disbursed loans to them under bank’s PMRY scheme without conducting proper pre-sanction inspection and the pre-sanction inspection Reports available in 20 loan A/cs were even not signed by the Inspecting Officer…..all the aforesaid 24 PMRY loan A/cs were out of order and the business activity for which loan was sanctioned had been stopped in respect of 16 loan A/c causing likely financial loss to the tune of Rs.7,21,320/- only (approximately) to the bank.

Departmental Inquiry was made and a report dated 5th September, 2001 submitted by the Inquiring Authority. The conclusions in the said report can be summed up as follows:-

(a) Regarding charge no.1 the Inquiring Authority found it difficult to conclusively say that the charges were proved beyond doubt and element of inconsistency persists when the records along with the deposition made by the writ petitioner was read. However, the said authority conclusively observed that both the writ petitioner (Manager) and the Casher did not follow the laid down norms/systems and procedures while dealing with the transactions.

(b) Regarding charge no.2 the Inquiring Authority observed that the charge was conclusively proved.

(c) Regarding charge no.3 the Inquiring Authority observed that there were irregularities for those accounts either at the time of disbursement or after disbursement but there were recourses for recovery of the loan and, hence, the charge for bank’s loss against the writ petitioner was not conclusively proved.

(d) Regarding charge