M. KATJU, D. R. CHAUDHARI, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned dismissal order dated December 30, 1997 Annexure 10 to the writ petition and the order dated March 28, 1998 Annexure 12 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was in the service of the allahabad Bank and was an officer in junior management grade-1 and was posted as assistant Manager. He was given a charge-sheet dated July 29, 1994 vide annexure 2 to the writ petition and he was suspended by the order dated January 21, 1994 vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that serious allegations of financial irregularities were made against the petitioner. Thereafter an enquiry was held in which he was given an opportunity of hearing and the enquiry officer submitted a report copy of which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. On the basis of the said report the petitioner was dismissed and his appeal was also rejected.

( 3 ) SRI. T. P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner only addressed us on the quantum of punishment and submitted that the punishment was disproportionate to the offence. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer, and State Bank of India v. T. J. Paul (1999-II-LLJ-514) (SC ). His submission was that it was merely a case of negligence and no deliberate misconduct was committed by the petitioner. We are not in agreement with this submission. No doubt had it been merely a case of a minor negligence we could have reduced the punishment following the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court. A perusal of the enquiry report dated October 25, 1997 Annexure 8 to the petition, however, shows that out of eight serious charges levelled against the petitioner the charges on Article I, ii, IV and VIII have been found proved while three of the charges i. e. on Article III, V and vi was found partly proved. The only charge on Article VII was found not proved. The findings of the enquiry officer are not only that the petitioner was reckless but also his conduct in a large number of transactions was dubious. For instance, regarding Article VI of the charges which states that the petitioner in a most irregular, reckless and dubious manner allowed opening of three S. B. Accounts through C. T. 20-A purported to have been issued by Banda branch without ensuring/ verifying the genuineness of C. T 20-A and released payment against them, sometimes single handedly despite presence of the clerk-cum-cashier with ulterior motive without getting the withdrawal form countersigned by the special assistant posted at the Branch, making interpolation in the head office schedule in order to conceal facts, facilitating perpetration of fraud thereby exposing the bank funds to the tune of Rs. 2. 46 lacs. The finding on this charge is that fraud in the aforesaid amounts aggregated Rs. 2. 46 lacs which amount was jeopardized due to recklessness and negligent acts of the petitioner.

( 4 ) SIMILARLY the charge regarding Article ii is that the petitioner during his tenure at the above Branch again acted in a dubious manner and failed to conduct proper pre-credit appraisal of loan applications received under irdp, SCP and Swakshkar Vimukti Yojna so as to arrive at the need based financial requirement of the borrowers and he processed all such applications in a reckless and negligent manner thus jeopardizing the financial interest of the Bank and no survey report or pre- credit appraisal note has been made in respect of the above advances and this charge was also found to be proved.

( 5 ) THE charge regarding Article I which has also been found to be proved is that the petitioner while posted at Kalinjar branch sanctioned and disbursed loans under various government sponsored schemes e. g. IRDP, scp and Swakshkar Vimukti Yojna in a most reckless and dubious manner and thus exposed the banks fund to extreme jeopardy as the amount involved in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document