IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to inspect documents and a fair opportunity to defend against charges.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

Preface:

1. In essence, questioning the justifiability of the order of punishment dated 22.01.2009 and the order of the appellate authority dated 21.04.2011, while also praying for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents to release the petitioner’s gratuity and other admissible dues, the present writ petition has been instituted.

Petitioner’s case:

2. Adverting to the facts, as unfurled in the writ petition, it would be noted that the petitioner joined the United Commercial Bank (in short, the bank) as an Assistant Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper on 09.09.1977. Due to his unblemished career, the petitioner was consistently promoted over time. On 13.07.2005, the petitioner was elevated to the post of M.M. Sr. Scale-II from its feeder post of JMG Scale-I and transferred to Deokhajuri Branch, Madhya Pradesh to officiate in the position of its Branch Manager.

3. He assumed the charge of the Deokhajuri Branch (hereinafter, the branch) on 18.07.2005. Within a short span of time, he realized that he was surrounded by certain unscrupulous individuals and a vicious circle was actively operating in the branch. They coerced the petitioner into signing certain loan documents. Through an informal communication dated 12.01.2006, he brought these facts to the attention of the General Manager of the bank.

4. During his tenure as Branch Manager, the petitioner achieved all the targets and his excellent performance garnered appreciation from the highest echelon of the bank. Certificates of merit/appreciation were even issued in acknowledgment of his outstanding performance.

5. All of a sudden, to his utter surprise, he received a purported order of suspension vide. dated 27.08.2007 which stated to have been issued by the Assistant General Manager of the bank in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding.

6. Within a quick succession, a show-cause notice dated 10.09.2007 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show-cause as to why suitable actions would not be taken against the petitioner for exhibiting lack of honesty, devotion and diligence in discharging his duties and for not taking the appropriate steps to protect the bank’s interest. The petitioner submitted his response to such show-cause notice within the time specified therein but without considering the same, the bank decided to proceed further.

7. A charge-sheet vide. no. ZOBP/VIG/OTH/58/07-08 dated 21.01.2008 was served upon the petitioner on the following allegations :

“(i) On 18.04.2006, he sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4(four) lakhs without considering the pre-sanction report. The spot verification report was not prepared in prescribed form. Subsequently, it was detected that the borrower personified himself to be the owner of the land in which the equitable mortgage was created to disburse the loan. The petitioner failed to conduct discreet enquiry from the villagers to ascertain the identity of the proposed borrower.

However, the loan was repaid and the bank did not suffer any pecuniary loss.

(ii) The petitioner/delinquent employee availed of privilege leave for 27 days commencing from 10.10.2005 to 5.11.2005, for 16 days, from 9.1.2006 to 24.1.2006 and for 13 days i.e. from 13.02.2006 to 25.02.2006 but during the period he was on leave, he put his signatures on the vouchers/papers related to the loans disbursed by one Shri Vijay Hatwaine, the then Assistant Manager of the branch.

(iii) Though no power was delegated to Mr. Hatwaine to sanction and disburse any loan, yet he had sanctioned and disbursed 64 loans to the tune of Rs. 188 lakhs during the period the delinquent was on leave but the delinquent put his signatures on the loan-documents with a view to protect Mr. Hatwaine.

(iv) Despite having no power, the delinquent purchased two cheques of Rs.9 and 4 lakhs for one M/s. Vishwakarma Welding Works and processed FDRs favouring them without following the KYC norms and in derogation of the Banking laws. He failed to recover commission