Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BEFORE : MANOJ MISRA AND VED PRAKASH VAISH, JJ.
SANTOSH SINGH, EX. ASSISTANT MANAGER, BALLIA ....Petitioner
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25102 of 2011, decided on 17th September, 2018)
Counsel :
C.B. Prasad, C.K. Parekh, Ram Lal Singh and V.K. Dwivedi for the Petitioners; Sahab Tiwari, Himanshu Tiwari, Rahul Sahai and Shiva Tiwari for the Respondents.
Headnote:Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 – Regulations 4(i), 3 and 24 – Misconduct – Disbursal of loan – Irregularities – Removal from service – Legality of – disbursal of loan beyond service area of bank – Charges have been found proved – Consolidated punishment of “removal from service” awarded – Irregularities committed by petitioner found serious and indicates total negligence on his part by not following direction issued thereby amounting to serious misconduct – Proof of loss to bank not necessary to be established to prove an act constituting misconduct – Every officer/employee of Bank has to take all possible steps to protect interest of Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer – Charge of acting beyond one’s authority in disbursing loan even after restrictions were imposed upon loan disbursement power of petitioner and also disbursing loans on date of his relieving charge despite stoppage of his loan disbursement power was an act of serious misconduct warranting punishment of removal – Interference with impugned order declined. [Paras 32 to 57]
Result; Petition Dismissed.
Hon’ble Ved Prakash Vaish, J.—By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 18th October, 2010 passed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank of India, Lucknow and the order dated 10th March, 2011 issued by the Branch Manager, Ratanpura, Distt. Mau as also the order dated 21st May, 2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Central Bank Of India, Regional Office, Lanka, Varanasi.
2. Briefly recapitulating the facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as clerk in Central Bank of India on 11.9.1989 at Revati Branch, Distt. Ballia. He earned promotions from time to time and was awarded for extraordinary performance in the year 1997-98 and again in 1998-99. He was also awarded Akhil Bhartiya First Runner Up Award by the Chairman of the Bank on 18.8.1998 and on 26.11.1999.
3. It is stated that by November, 2002, the petitioner was promoted as head cashier and, in March, 2004, the petitioner appeared in All India Promotional Examination and succeeded whereafter he was posted as Assistant Manager in Regional Office, Deoria.
4. It is further stated that while in service, the petitioner was mostly posted at leading branches or Regional Offices as such he did not gain experience of accounts and house keeping work. He, however, could obtain only three weeks training for general banking.
5. The petitioner has stated that on 24.1.2008, a charge-sheet was issued by the Disciplinary Authority to him containing 16 charges. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges and also the written arguments on 8.1.2009. It is stated by the petitioner that all the 16 charges are not based upon facts but on assumptions and presumptions.
6. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report with findings on 30.1.2009. The petitioner also filed his response to the findings on 16.2.2009 raising objection to the manner and procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer.
7. Vide order dated 21st May, 2009, the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner with observation that it shall not be disqualification for future employment as per Regulation 4 (i) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
8. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 21st May, 2009 before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.10.2010, which is assailed in the present petition.
9. We have heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiva Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that neither misappropriation nor fraud was proved in the disciplinary proceeding, therefore, the penalty of removal from service is illegal and not justified. Though, there were lapses on the part of the petitioner, but the same did not amount to serious misconduct warranting removal from service.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer have failed to take into consideration the circumstances and material brought on record by the petitioner which have either been ignored or dealt with in cursory manner.
12. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to represent his case by the Enquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority and the charges were proved by twisting the material placed on record.
13. It was further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the charges were not based upon facts but on assumptions and presumptions without properly verifying the position whether the loan was duly utilized and the borrowers had running business. The respondents have questioned only the mode and manner of distribution of loan through the charge-sheet but no dishonest intention or malice on the part of the petitio
