Heard Mr. S. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Apex Bank) and its Managing Director is represented by advocate Mr. PN Goswami.

2. The petitioner is a former employee of the Apex Bank and he challenges the order dated 29.11.1999 (Annexure-VI), whereby he was dismissed from service in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. Previously a departmental proceeding was drawn up against the delinquent through the charge memo dated 23.12.1997 (Annexure-I) alleging misconduct and gross irregularities during the delinquent’s tenure as the Accountant of the Tinsukia Branch of the Apex Bank from 29.12.1993 to 27.07.1996.

3. The charges in essence alleged that the delinquent committed irregularities in disbursal of Medium Term Loans for vehicle purchase. The statement of allegations being relevant, are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference :-

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.1 :

That as per clause 13 of H.O. letter dt. 28-10-91 “all loan proposals should be forwarded to H.O. by the Branch in charge only and not by any staff Subordinate to him. In case of temporary absence in the Branch proposals should be held up till his return or H.O. opinion should be sought for.” In violation of the above instruction Sri Chutia forwarded the proposals from Sl. No.1 to 13 under Annexure ’A’ directly to H.O. without seeking H.O. opinion as required since Tinsukia Branch is headed by a Branch Manager.

That as per instruction communicated by H.O. Memo No.13(A) of 1989 dtd. 30-03-89 the Branch is required to route all proposals up to Rs.3.00 Lakhs(Rupees Three Lakhs) only through respective Zonal Manages. In violation of the above instructions Shri Chutia forwarded the proposals under Sl. No.1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Annexure ‘A’ directly to H.O. without routing through the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, Jorhat.

That as per clause no.10 of the aforesaid H.O. letter dt. 28-10-91 land properties offered as security should be personally verified by the Branch Manager. In violation of the above instruction Shri Hem Chandra Chutia forwarded the proposals under Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12 of Annexure ‘A’ verified by the Sub-Acctt. of the Branch, Shri D.K. Bordoloi. That the collateral security of proposals under Sl. No.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 were verified by Shri Chutia himself.

That regarding the proposals forwarded to H.O. by Shri Hem Chandra Chutia, Shri Chutia has stated in written statement dt. 22-06-96, 10-08-96 and 26-08-96 that he was verbally instructed by Branch Manager to forward the proposals and that he had also been verbally directed by the then General Manager, Shri B.N. Sharma to forward the proposals to H.O. Further he was under pressure from H.O. and the applicants. That Shri Chutia had not substantiated his statement of forwarding under instruction from H.O. by following up with H.O. or arranged to get written confirmation from H.O. That in absence of written confirmation from H.O. his defence of acting on pressures from H.O. can not be substantiated and he acted contrary to norms and instructions.

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.2 :

That all the proposals under Annexure ‘A’ were residents of Duliajan under Dibrugarh District. That though the Bank has a Branch at Duliajan and though the vehicles were purportedly to be placed with OIL, Duliajan Shri Hem Chandra Chutia did not cause to ascertain as to why so many proposals were routed through Tinsukia Branch which fell under a different District. Opinion of Duliajan Branch on credit worthiness of the borrowers were also not insisted upon.

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.3 :

That Shri Hem Chandra Chutia forwarded 13(Thirteen) proposals of vehicle Loans under Tie-Up arrangement with Oil India Ltd., Duliajan by a single forwarding letter dt. 30-11-94 as under :

Sl. Name Amt. recommended

No. ___________________________________________

1. Shri Sanjib Gogoi Rs. 26