Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be granted without new material or changed circumstances, especially for probationary officers whose actions are part of their learning process.

ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This bunch of petitions is filed by set of banking officers belonging to the Punjab National Bank. It is submitted that these cases are similar in nature, whereby the competent authority after refusing to grant sanction, under the pressure of Chief Vigilance Commissioner and the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) has granted sanction without there being any change in the circumstances or without there being any new material brought on record.

2. For the purposes of reference, facts in the case of W.P. No.26941/2021 (Govind Singh Lodhi Vs. Union of India and others) are taken for consideration.

3. Petitioner’s contention is that petitioner was working as Manager (Credit) in MMG Scale-II, for which selection was conducted by the respondent-Punjab National Bank. He was declared successful and vide order dated 21.01.2013, he was offered appointment on the said post of Manager (Credit) in MMG Scale-II, where he gave his joining on 18.04.2013. Petitioner upon giving his joining, was posted at Kanthal (Ujjain). Petitioner was initially appointed on probation for a period of two years, as is evident from his appointment order (Annexure P-1).

4. It is submitted that as an employee of the Punjab National Bank, provisions of the Punjab National Bank Officers (Conduct) Regulations, 1977 , Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 and Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 and other rules and conditions of service laid down by the Bank from time to time for its officers, were applicable to the petitioner.

5. It is submitted that a complaint was made on 16.01. 2018 by one Shri Vijay Kumar Harit, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Assets Recovery Management Branch, Indore, and an FIR was registered against certain persons. It was alleged that the accused officers in connivance with the borrower and the guarantors, sanctioned a Cash Credit Limit (CCL) of Rs.400 Lakhs on 19.07.2013 in favor of one Sohanlal Kothari, who was proprietor of M/s Jai Jinendra Industries. That cash credit limit was to be used in the business of coal trading. Against the said cash credit limit, borrower along with the guarantors had mortgaged land and building of more than 100%.

6. The allegation is that the sanction of cash credit limit was in blatant violation of the Bank norms and without verifying the required stocks/securities. It was further alleged that the collateral security was overvalued and false, forged and fictitious documents were procured by the borrower for grant of the cash credit limit.

7. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ACB, Bhopal, lodged FIR under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 471, IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity “PC Act”) against the accused persons. The allegation against the petitioner Shri Govind Singh Lodhi is that when he was posted as Manager (Credit) at Branch Kanthal (Ujjain) of the Punjab National Bank, then without verifying and analyzing documents and financial details, forwarded the application of the borrower. Another interesting fact is that initially name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR, but was included in the array of accused in the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the prosecution approached the competent authority of the respondent Bank for the purpose of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner under Section 19 of the PC Act.

8. It is submitted that since petitioner was a probationer, therefore, in terms of the rules and regulations of the Punjab National Bank, he being the junior-most officer and on probation, still learning the tricks of the trade, was not aware of the intricacies of the cash credit limit and, therefore, he being only a recommending authority and not the sanctioning authority of cash credit limit, he could not have been arrayed as an accused in violation of the provisions contained in the service regulations