THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIONNo.33546of 2021

ORDER

The petitioner joined the respondent-Punjab National Bank in clerical cadre in the year 2014, and thereafter obtained promotion as officer in 2016. While he was serving at Gulbarga Branch as a Manager, a charge sheet was issued to him on 01.10.2020 alleging that,during the period 21.09.2016 to 13.08.2018 when he was posted as Officer in- charge of Branch Office, Toopran, he sanctioned loans without conducting due diligence and obtaining confirmation of action as per the Bank’s guidelines, and also exceeded his powers to sanction certain loans. It is alleged that loans to the tune of Rs.615.75 lakhs were sanctioned, risking the money of the Bank, out of which Rs.224.19 lakhs are proving difficult to recover. Petitioner submitted explanation to the charges on 04.12.2020. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was conducted by appointing one Mr. Subash Chandra Singh, Chief Manager, as Inquiry Officer, and one Smt.Y.Sumathi as Presenting Officer. Based on the inquiry report, petitioner was held guilty of the charges and a major punishment of Compulsory Retirement was imposed by Order dated 01.11.2021 under PNB Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 25.11.2021 to the Executive Director of the Bank, which was rejected by Order dated 21.11.2022 observing that the appeal is rejected, confirming the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the inquiry is lopsided,and he was not afforded a fair opportunity to defend his case and the Regulations have not been followed while imposing the punishment. It is his further grievance that his representation dated 25.11.2021 seeking de novo enquiry into the allegations has been construed as an Appeal and the Appellate Authority rejected the same.

2. Heard Mr. Kumaraswamy Namburi, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent-Bank. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would essentially contend that during October 2017 to November 2017, an inspection was conducted and the observations raised in the Inspection Report were complied and the Inspection Report was closed on 25.01.2018; and thereafter a surprise visit was conducted in February 2018 by Mr. Raghunath, Chief Manager from Circle Office and he verified the loan documentation files and reported some pendency and due to the pendency at Branch, loaning powers had been stopped for Toopran Branch since March 2018 thereby new loans were not sanctioned till August 2018. It is contended that Mr. Samir, and Mr. K. Ramesh, Senior Managers in the Credit Department from Circle Office have periodically visited and verified the pendency during May 2018 and June 2018; and thereafter Mr. Raghunath, Chief Manager visited the Branch again during July 2018 and inspected the loan documents and made an observation that all the objections that he made have been rectified, and only after ensuring the inspection observations were rectified at Toopran Branch Office, the petitioner was transferred to Centralized Loan Processing Cell, Koti. Learned counsel contends that after the petitioner thereafter obtained promotion as Manager Scale-II and was transferred to Bangalore Circle at Dadgi Branch and later to Gulbarga Branch and was informed that he was placed under Suspension for the irregularities at Toopran Branch. Learned counsel contends that none of the aforesaid officials who visited the Branch and made observations and later confirmed that the petitioner complied with the observations, have been examined, and further no documents in support of the charges/allegations were furnished to the petitioner while issuing him the charge sheet dated 01.10.2020, except directing the petitioner to submit explanation within seven days therefrom