Back
2014 Supreme(Gau) 210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwala
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
Writ Petition (C) No. 1025/2009
Decided On: 04.03.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. S. Shyam, Mr. A. Dhar, Mr. K.K. Das, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. S.S. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. G. Jalan and Ms. L. Sarma, Advocates
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Service Rules - Rule 68(2)(ix), 67 & 68 - Removed from service - Serious irregularities in sanction and disbursement of a Cash Credit loan - Charged - Misconduct alleged was in connection with petitioners stint as the Branch Manager of Phulbari Branch of the SBI, where he was posted - Disciplinary proceeding was drawn up under Rule 67 & 68 of SBI Officers Service Rules with the charge memo dated 28.10.2004 (Annexure-7), where following 2 charges and six allegations were leveled against the Deputy Manager - While you were posted as Branch Manager at Phulbari branch of State Bank of India from committed some serious irregularities in sanction and disbursement of a Cash Credit loan to guaranteed by at branch of State Bank of India, by abusing your position as Branch Manager - Had earlier sanctioned loansfrom Phulbari Branch both of which had turned NPA during material period - Thus, failed to protect interest of Bank and did not discharge your duties with integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, which is unbecoming of a responsible officer of Bank - Actions are in clear violation of Rule No. 50(1) and 50(4) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules applicable - Imputations of lapses on basis of which charges are framed are enlisted in attached – Held, disagreement of the disciplinary authority with Inquiry Officer disciplinary authority should have afforded an opportunity to delinquent to enable him to support the favourable conclusion reached by Inquiry Officer and having regard to decision in State Bank of India Vs. K.P. Narayanan Kutty (Supra),Court of view that procedure followed by disciplinary authority in pursuant to Inquiry is inconsistent with law declared - Petitioner was not furnished with list of witnesses as mandated by Rule 68(2)(ix) of Service Rules and more importantly since vital documents relevant to the charges were withheld from he delinquent it is apparent that the Inquiry proceeding suffers from serious procedural infirmity and since proceeding is contrary to statutory prescription and reasonable opportunity was denied to delinquent to defend the charges, it has to be declared that the proceeding is unfair and is vitiated and cannot be utilized for any disciplinary action - Conspicuously some relevant evidence like discretionary loan sanctioning limit (Rs. 25,000) of branch manager, account ledgers, control return files, request for the petitioners assistance at branch by his superior and his branch manager colleague were not taken into account and a predetermined conclusion was reached by the Inquiry Officer - Therefore on the basis of available materials, impugned findings are found to be given arbitrarily without material support and consequently the findings are declared to be perverse justifying the writ courts interference - It is ordered accordingly.
1. Heard Mr. S. Shyam, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are represented by Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned Sr. Counsel. The petitioner was a Deputy Manager in the State Bank of India (SBI) and in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding, he was removed from service through the impugned order dated 29.04.2006 (page. 198). Questioning the legality of the disciplinary proceeding and the foundation of the adverse conclusion, the present case is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The misconduct alleged was in connection with the petitioner's stint as the Branch Manager of the Phulbari Branch of the SBI, where he was posted from 21.07.1996 to 19.06.2001. The disciplinary proceeding was drawn up under Rule 67 & 68 of the SBI Officers Service Rules with the charge memo dated 28.10.2004 (Annexure-7), where the following 2 charges and six allegations were leveled against the Deputy Manager:-
Charge-I
While you were posted as Branch Manager at Phulbari branch of State Bank of India from July' 96 July' 2001 you committed some serious irregularities in sanction and disbursement of a Cash Credit loan for Rs. 1,00,000/- to Shri Abdul Kuddus Mondal, guaranteed by Shri Hasanuzzaman at Hallydayganj branch of State Bank of India, by abusing your position as Branch Manager. You had, earlier, sanctioned loans to Shri Abdul Kuddus/Quddus Mondal and Shri Hasanuzzaman, from Phulbari Branch, both of which had turned NPA during the material period. You influenced the Branch Manager, Hallydayganj branch to sanction the Cash Credit loan, without disclosing the Agricultural Term Loan to Shri Mondal and Shri Hasanuzzaman at Phulbari branch. As a result of your deliberate actions, the Bank's interest has been put in jeopardy and the Bank has been exposed to pecuniary loss of substantial amount. You have, thus, failed to protect the interest of the Bank and did not discharge your duties with integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, which is unbecoming of a responsible officer of the Bank. Your actions are in clear violation of Rule No. 50(1) and 50(4) of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules applicable to you. The imputations of lapses on the basis of which the charges are framed are enlisted in the attached ANNEXURE-II.
Charge No. II
You committed some gross irregularities in sanction and disbursement of two clean overdrafts to i) The Secretary, J.N. High School and ii) Shri Tapash K. Sangma for Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- on 17-04-2000 and 28-05-2001 respectively, which have become Non Performing Asset due to non-payment by borrowers. On scrutiny it is observed that the above overdrafts were sanctioned by you beyond your discretionary power (being Rs. 3000 only) during that period. You have neither submitted the Control Returns of advances nor the returns of irregular loans to your controlling officer on a regular basis. You have financed recklessly flouting Bank's extant Rules and Regulations with ulterior motives. You have not obtained prior approval of your controlling authority and also not sought post facto approval for the same. As a result of your deliberate actions, the Bank's interest has been put in jeopardy and the Bank has been exposed to pecuniary loss of substantial amount. You have, thus, failed to protect the interest of the Bank and did not discharge your duties with integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, which is unbecoming of a responsible officer of the Bank. Your actions are in clear violation of Rule No. 50(1) and 50(4) of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules applicable to you.
The imputations of lapses on the basis of which the charges are framed are enlisted in the attached ANNEXURE-II.
Allegation No. I
A Cash Credit loan application form dated 12.3.99 was submitted to Hallydayganj branch of State Bank of India by Shri Abdul Kuddus Mondal for a working capital limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- against work order, was written in your handwriting. You assisted th
