Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
V. Arunkumar
Versus
Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited & Another
W.P.No.35902 of 2005
Decided On : 06-11-2008
HUDCO - Disciplinary Proceedings - [Section 3, Section 9, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 21, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 26, Section 27, Section 28, Section 29, Section 30, Section 31, Section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 35, Section 36, Section 37, Section 38, Section 39] - The court discussed the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, emphasizing the responsibilities of the petitioner as the Chief of the Tamil Nadu Region and the violation of approved guidelines for sanctioning a loan, leading to non-realization of penal interest and causing substantial loss to the agency. The court also addressed the denial of opportunity to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, the failure to adhere to the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, and the imposition of multiple punishments. The court ultimately dismissed the Writ Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a regional chief, recommended a loan sanction resulting in non-realization of penal interest, leading to disciplinary proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority imposed multiple punishments, which the petitioner challenged in the Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions led to substantial loss to the agency and upheld the imposition of multiple punishments by the Disciplinary Authority.
Issues: The issues included the petitioner's responsibility in recommending the loan, the denial of opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority, the failure to adhere to the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission, and the imposition of multiple punishments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to independently assess the borrower's capacity to repay the loan constituted misconduct, and the imposition of multiple punishments was justified.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Proceedings F.No.HUDCO/VIG-169 (VolI)/2000/332 on the file of the 1st Respondent/Appellate Authority dated 08. 2005 confirming the order of the 2nd Respondent made in Proceedings F.No.HUDCO/VIG-169 (VolI)/2000/980 dated 03. 2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to extend all the attendant benefits to the Petitioner.
Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Proceedings dated 08. 2005 passed by the 1st Respondent and consequently direct the Respondents to extend all the attendant benefits to the Petitioner.
2. Facts in nutshell are as follows:-
(i) Petitioner joined the services of the Respondents on 03. 1980. He assumed charge as Regional Chief on 15. 1997 and continued to hold the said post till March 2004. During the year 1997-1998, Petitioner as Regional Chief recommended for sanction of Rs.7 crores to M/s. Premier Housing and Industrial Enterprises Limited (PHIEL). Acting on the recommendation of the Petitioner, Respondents disbursed a sum of Rs.7 crores to PHIEL. Loan was granted on the basis of Bank guarantee offered by Global Trust Bank and no other security was taken for securing the loan. It was found that the recommendation of the Petitioner was not proper in as much as Petitioner had failed to comply with the scrutiny norms prescribed by HUDCO. Therefore, Charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner on 12. 2002. Writ Petitioner offered his written explanation on 04. 2002 mainly contending that he has acted bonafidely and has shown due diligence in making recommendation for grant of loan.
(ii) By order dated 19. 2002, one of the Executive Directors of HUDCO by name K.C.Batra was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Enquiry Officer has chosen to examine three witnesses and marked 15 documents. Delinquent examined one witness and marked 16 documents. On analysis of materials and evidence let in by both parties, Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding that Charge No.3 proved. It was found that other four charges have not been proved.
(iii) The Deputy Chief (Vigilance) of HUDCO bank issued a communication dated 18. 2004 enclosing copy of the Enquiry Officers report stating that Disciplinary Authority has tentatively agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed the delinquent to make his representation on the enquiry report within 15 days time. The delinquent had submitted his representation on 211. 2004 in respect of Charge No.3 which was held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer.
(iv) The Disciplinary Authority had passed the impugned order dated 03. 2005 taking a different view than that of the Enquiry Officer holding that all the five Charges framed against the delinquent have been proved. Writ Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of :-(i) Reduction to the lower post of Dy. Chief; (ii) Reducing the basic pay by five increments in lower scale; and (iii) Not to consider for promotion for the next two years by virtue of the impugned order dated 03. 2005.
(v) Aggrieved by the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, Writ Petitioner has preferred Appeal Memo raising grounds of victimisation, denial of opportunity etc. First Respondent/Appellate Authority confirmed the order of Disciplinary Authority by the impugned order dated 08. 2005 which is challenged in this Writ Petition.
3. Respondents have filed common counter-affidavit inter alia contending that the delinquent officer is responsible for issuing a wrong certification and has neglected in his duty in not adverting to the appraisal report of Indian Bank in regard to the financial status and repayment capacity of the loanee and that Writ Petitioner cannot pass on his liability and responsibility to the other Wings of the Bank. It has also been stated that undue favour shown to the loanee resulted in non-realisation of interest and p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
