SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(All) 2439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Pradeep Kant, V. N. Singh
S. C. GARG - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 34458 Of 1995
Decided On : 11/11/2003

The sanctioning authority is duty-bound to verify the genuineness of loan applications and account balances, and the recovery of losses can be ordered to compensate the bank.

Headnote:

Negligence - Disciplinary Proceedings - Janta Deposit Scheme - Charges 1, 2, 3 - Para 17.1 - Sanctioning Authority's Responsibility - Recovery of Loss - Dismissal of Appeal

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Branch Manager at State Bank of India, faced disciplinary proceedings and was removed from service and ordered to pay Rs. 88,934.00 due to alleged negligence in the Janta Deposit Scheme. The petitioner challenged the findings and punishment, arguing that the scheme's faults and the involvement of other bank employees should absolve him from major punishment and recovery.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the petitioner's negligence resulted in substantial loss to the bank, and the charges against him were proven. The court upheld the punishment but modified the recovery amount to Rs. 72,000.00, if not already recovered.

Issues: The issues involved negligence in the Janta Deposit Scheme, responsibility of the sanctioning authority, and the proportionality of the recovery amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sanctioning authority is responsible for verifying loan applications and ensuring the genuineness of signatures and account balances. The recovery of the loss was deemed appropriate, and the punishment was upheld but with a modified recovery amount.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the punishment but modifying the recovery amount to Rs. 72,000.00.


( 1 ) THE petitioner S. C. Garg, while working as Branch Manager at one of the Branches of State Bank of India at Aligarh, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in which he was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service and recovery of an amount of Rs. 88,934. 00, vide order dated 12/12/1994 passed by the Chief General Manager, namely, the appointing authority (Annexure-10 to the writ petition ). The statutory appeal preferred against the aforesaid punishment was also rejected by the appellate authority, namely, Deputy Managing Director and Corporate development Officer, vide order dated 17. 8. 1995.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid two orders, the present writ petition has been filed in which making a challenge to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the appointing authority in the order of punishment and that recorded by the appellate authority confirming the punishment order, learned counsel laid emphasis upon the scheme of working under the "janta Deposit Scheme" floated by the State Bank of India for giving door to door service to the public at large An effort has been made to expose glaring faults in implementation of the aforesaid "janta Deposit Scheme" which resulted in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and award of major punishment of removal from service coupled with the punishment of recovery of certain amount. The challenge has also been advanced on the ground that though there were other persons involved in the same transaction, namely, Deposit Collector under the "janta Deposit Scheme", a Clerk of the Bank and the accountant of the Bank, but the petitioner has been singled out in the matter of making recovery of the amount, though the petitioner did not admit the liability nor it could be proved by the Bank that the petitioner either used or misused or misappropriated the amount of the Bank, which has been disbursed under the loan advanced in the name of the parties, which find full description in the charge sheet.

( 3 ) AN alternative argument has been made that even if there was fault on the part of the petitioner in not verifying the signatures and genuineness of loan applications and bonafides of the transaction, as the petitioner simply relied upon the recommendations and verification made by the subordinate staff, namely, Deposit Collector, Clerk of the Bank and the accountant and, therefore, the action of the petitioner could not be termed as `misconduct but could only be taken as `negligence in the performance of his duties. The submission, therefore, is that for an act of negligence which has occurred because of the faulty scheme of the Bank itself, the petitioner could not have been saddled with major punishment nor with the punishment of recovery.

( 4 ) ANY procedural irregularity in the conduct of enquiry has not been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, therefore, we presume that the petitioner has no grievance of procedural nature during the course of enquiry.

( 5 ) IN response to the aforesaid arguments of the petitioner, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that it was the responsibility of the petitioner, Branch Manager, to be convinced and get himself satisfied before sanctioning a loan. The Scheme under which the "janta Deposit scheme" was being run and was being implemented has also been produced before us in support of his submission that the Scheme gives detailed procedure for engagement of Deposit Collector, for opening of the account and for withdrawal of money in terms of the loan, as the money under the said Scheme could not have been withdrawn otherwise than by way of loan. He has also placed reliance upon several safeguards, which have to be taken by the Branch Manager/sanctioning authority of the loan before granting approval to the loan or sanctioning it. "janta Deposit Scheme" was introduced in the year 1971 with a view to inculcating the habit of thrift amount the low-income group of people and mobilizing t

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top