AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition is directed against an order dated 20-03-1991 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner. The petitioner prays for a direction, directing the respondents herein to reinstate him into service.
It may be necessary to notice few relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition. The petitioner was appointed in the Officer Cadre in the Punjab National Bank. He worked as Branch Manager at Nellore from 1979 till March, 1982. Later on he was promoted as Manager in the Zonal Office at Madras.
The petitioner herein was served with a charge-sheet on 18-4-1983 for the alleged serious lapses committed by him white working as Manager, Branch Office, Nellore, in the matter of sanctioning and conducting of loan accounts of M/s. Sulochana Hatcheries. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge-sheet dated 18-4-1985, on 31-5-1985 denying the charges levelled against him; an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry was held against the petitioner. The enquiry commenced on 13-1-1986. The Enquiry officer submitted his report on 22-5-1986 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. The Disciplinary authority having accepted the report of the Enquiry officer passed orders imposing penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent herein on 20-11-1986 and the same was dismissed on 16-12-1986. The review preferred by him before the Chairman was also met the same fate. The petitioner questioned the same in WP No.15694 of 1988 and this Court by order dated 29-6-1990 quashed the order of review and that of the appellate authority and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the order. The said writ petition was mainly allowed on the ground that the appellate authority failed to consider the correctness of the findings recorded in the inquiry report and the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. This Court directed the appeal to be disposed of after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in person or through a Counsel of his choice. The petitioner thereafter made a written representation to the appellate authority on 20-10-1990, The appellate authority having heard the matter pursuant to the directions of this Court, disposed of the appeal by order dated 20-3-1991 modifying the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority to that of compulsory retirement. It is the said order which is impugned in this writ petition on various grounds.
It may be necessary to briefly notice the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is alleged that during the year 1980-1981, while working as Branch Manager, Nellore, the petitioner abused his official position connived with the management of the unit M/s. Sulochana Hatcheries, Nellore, recommended and obtained sanction of a total loan of about Rs.25 Lakhs in utter disregard to the rules of the Bank and thereby exposed the bank to a great risk of loss and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer in violation of Regulation 3 of Punjab National Bank Officer-Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977. A statement of imputations of misconduct was enclosed in support of the articles of charge against the petitioner.
One M/s. Sulochana Hatcheries, Nellore, (hereinafter referred to as ''the firm'') in its applications dated 6-12-1979 and 22-12-1979 requested the Branch Manager, Nellore, to sanction a term loan of Rs.8 Lakhs to construct buildings, sheds and to acquire machinery and equipment and cash loan of Rs.6 Lakhs to purchase parent stock of poultry, birds, feed, medicines etc., respectively. The petitioner, on 3-1-1980,is stated to have recommended for sanction, after processing the application. The Zonal Manager, in turn, recommended the proposal to the Head-Office and the Head-Office sanctioned a term loan Rs.7.63 Lakhs for construction of buildings and purchase of machinery etc., and Rs.3.75 Lakhs as working capital. However, it was stipulated that the petitioner herein should obtain collateral security by mortgage of landed property valued at Rs.3.00 Lakhs belonging to the partners of the firm before disbursement of these loans.
It is alleged that the petitioner herein had released a sum of Rs.3,13,588 from the working capital loan account to the borrowers of the said unit even before obtaining sanction of the loan. It is also alleged that the petitioner herein suppressed the fact that the partners and guarantors availed loan earlier to set-up poultry units and those loans were outstanding. The details of other allegations need not be noticed as this Court is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction as such. Suffice it to notice that the petitioner herein denied all the allegations levelled against him. It is the case of the petitioner that the total loan limits recommended by him was only Rs.10 Lakhs and Rs.6.50 Lakhs and the Board of Directors have sanctioned loans during his tenure as Manager only to that extent. Further loan amounts, if any, were not recommended or sanctioned during his tenure as Manager at Nellore; but, they were sanctioned on the recommendations made by his successor officers. It is also his case that the said Firm having obtained the loan amount, deposited a sum of Rs.11,98,724.28 as on the date of issuing of the Charge Memo. Therefore, the Bank was not exposed to any risk or loss as such. It is also the case of the petitioner that he merely recommended for sanction of the loan and his immediate Superior Officers -one M.K. Menon, Assistant General Manager, and and he in turn recommended it to the Head Office, New Delhi through his letter dated 11-2-1980 to sanction the loan. The loan application was scrutinised at various stages and divisions and ultimately by the Agricultural Credit Division of the Head Office, New Delhi, and they in turn recommended through their letter dated 8-2-1980 for sanction of the amount. The Board of Directors ultimately having satisfied themselves about the genuineness of the applications and other supporting documents approved the proposal and sanctioned the loan.
It is, however, admitted by the petitioner that certain amounts were released in advance; but, the said fact was intimated to all the concerned and the subsequent sanction of the amounts by the Head-office would amount to ratifying the action taken by him. It is also his case that earlier transactions by the partners of the firm and the guarantors have taken place much before his taking charge at Nellore branch and they were sanctioned by his predecessors.
However, the Inquiry Officer held that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. The Disciplinary authority having agreed with the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer imposed the major penalty of dismissal. We need not go into all these aspects now, since this Court had directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh.
In this writ petition, Sri L. Ravichander, learned Counsel for the petitioner streneously contends that the order passed by the appellate authority is totally vitiated for the reason of non-application of mind. It is submitted that the petitioner is in no way responsible for the sanction of loan as he has merely forwarded and recommended the application for sanction of the loan. The application of the loan was processed at different stages by the superior officers and no defect as such was noticed at the time of sanction of loan. It is also submitted that the equitable mortgage of Rs.3 Lacs was subsequently created and the Bank''s interest was secured through collateral security as per the sanction order. In fact, the Assistant General Manager and the Regional Manager during their visits to the Unit of the Finn in December, 1980 and January, 1981, respectively, expressed satisfaction of the integrity/credit-worthiness of the firm and they have also satisfied about the working of the Unit. This, itself, would show that the petitioner had acted in the best interest of the Bank.
It is required to notice that the appellate authority had adverted to each of these submissions which were also made before him and decided them on merits. The appellate authority appears to have once again heard the matter and dis-agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary authority with regard to certain allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is not as if, the appellate authority merely confirmed the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority without adverting to any of the points raised by the petitioner during the course of hearing of the appeal. It is observed by the appellate authority that the proposals for the additional loan of Rs.65,000-00 certifying that the Unit has been running satisfactorily was not submitted by the petitioner, but the same was submitted by his successor and, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for that part of the charge,
With regard to the charge of non-obtaining approval of the Board for enhancement of the limits, the responsibility does not He with the petitioner, but lies with the Assistant General Manager, M.K. Menon, who accorded the sanction of his own. The appellate authority even absolved the petitioner of the charge that he has released the sanctioned amount to the party concerned without prior sanction. The record reveals that there was a mention of the said fact that the Assistant General Manager, himself, had advised to release a sum of Rs.2.23 Lacs, in view of the urgent need and the petitioner accordingly released the said sum. The appellate authority had completely absolved the petitioner of this charge.
Having gone through the entire record and the material available on record, the appellate authority held the petitioner herein responsible for the following lapses:
(i) Shri Rao was aware of the adverse features in the five individual accounts of the partners guarantors of this firm, still he recommended fresh loans to the firm, suppressing this material information.
(ii) Shri Rao recommended to AGM a fresh loan of Rs.49,000/- to Shri Gopalish by suppressing the fact that he is a partner in the firm even when the Board sanction dated 26-6-1980 already included purchase of a delivery van at a cost of Rs.65-000/-.
(iii)Shri Rao had not followed the terms of sanction of creating equitable mortgage of Rs.3.0 Lacs.
Sri L. Ravinchander, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, made an attempt to invite my attention to the evidence available on record to contend that the said evidence and the material available on record do not support the findings of the appellate authority. It is settled law that this Court does not sit in appeal over the decisions of the Disciplinary authorities. This Court cannot reappreciate the entire evidence and accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the appellate authority are based on no evidence at all. True, a finding which is based on no evidence is a perverse one. But such is not the case on hand. The record in unmistakable terms would disclose that the petitioner herein was aware of the adverse features of the partners and guarantors of the firm and inspite of the same, he had chosen to recommend for sanction of fresh loans to the partners of the firm. The action on the part of the petitioner would undoubtedly amount to suppressing the required material. The petitioner obviously failed to disclose the fact of earlier defaults committed by the partners of M/s. Sulochana Hatcharies, Nellore. Merely because the petitioner subsequently obtained equitable mortgage would not absolve him of the charge.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein failed to comply with the directions of the Head-Office and released the amounts even without obtaining the equitable mortgage of the properties worth about Rs.3.00 Lacs held by the partners of the firm. Equally it is evident from the record that a sum of Rs.65,000.00 was sanctioned to the firm for the purpose of delivery van and the petitioner is fully aware of the said fact. Inspite of the same, the petitioner has recommended for sanction of fresh loan of Rs.49,000.00 to one of the partners of the firm for the purpose of purchase of vehicle. These findings are based upon the material available on record. It is true, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Bank have not supported the allegations made against the petitioner and contained in the charges. But that itself does not mean that the material available on record did not make out any case against the petitioner. The other documentary evidence and the material available on record would undoubtedly support the view taken by the appellate authority, atleast, with regard to those three findings holding the petitioner responsible for the lapses.
The appellate authority under the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the view taken by it, dis-agreeing with certain findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer, thought it fit to impose lesser punishment of compulsory retirement instead of dismissal from service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri L Ravichander, however, would urge that this punishment of compulsory retirement is admittedly a major penalty and suffers from the vice of proportionality. The learned Counsel submits that this punishment of compulsory retirement is totally dis-proportionate to the mis-conduct alleged. I find it difficult to accept this submission.
This Court cannot decide as to what would have been the appropriate punishment. Suffice it to observe that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is not so disproportionate which would shock the conscience of the Court. The material available on record and the order passed by the appellate authority would show that the appellate authority had adverted to every conceivable aspect of the matter. The criticism levelled by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority failed to apply its mind to the facts of the case on hand is untenable. The very fact that the appellate authority disagreed with many of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and absolved the petitioner from the liability, itself, would show that each and every aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the appellate authority. It is not a case of mere mechanical and routine confirmation of the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The proceedings would disclose intense application of mind by the appellate authority. Even during the course of hearing of the appeal specific questions were put to the petitioner and the replies given by the petitioner to such questions have been taken into consideration. Even the oral evidence available on record was once again reappreciated by the appellate authority. Under those circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the findings of the appellate authority.
I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs