Shri B Premanada Pal vs Vijaya bank

Subhash B. Adi, J.—This writ petition is by the dismissed employee of the respondent - Bank questioning the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank dated 28.12.2011 produced at Annexure ''H'' morandum No. 917 placed by the personnel department of the Bank before the Board of Directors produced at Annexure L. The facts, which are not in dispute are that, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for the alleged irregularities in relation to disbursement of loan and recovery. The Enquiry Officer held that certain charges are proved and submitted a report. Based on the said report, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal. The order of dismissal as confirmed by the appellate authority has not been questioned in this writ petition. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Board by the resolution dated 28.12.2011, has sought for recovery of Rs. 5,08,005/-as financial loss caused by the petitioner due to his misconduct. As against this resolution - Annexure ''H'' and also the memorandum - Annexure he petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had waived the interest on loan of certain borrowers for the purpose of speedy recovery in terms of the guidelines issued by the Bank itself. However, for such waiver, he was charge sheeted and enquiry was held. During the course of the enquiry, there was no charge of financial loss caused by the petitioner to the Bank. After the enquiry after the order of dismissal was confirmed by the appellate authority, by the resolution impugned in this writ petition, the Board has resolved to recover Rs. 5,08,005/- Bank had not issued any notice to the petitioner showing as to how the financial loss has been determined.

This Court, in W.P. No. 37493/2010 dated 26th September 2011 had observed at para 12 as under-

Taking into consideration the record of the case, there is an obligation on the part of the Board of the 1st respondent, to declare the amount of loss or damage, if any, on account of the acts of misconduct by the petitioner, which resulted in his dismissal from service w.e.f. 04.05.2009. If such a declaration is made and intimated to the 2nd respondent and if there is a refusal to pay bank''s contribution made to the petitioner''s account with interest, the petitioner can seek the relief. Thus, the writ petition is premature.

In view of the above direction, the Board had passed the resolution. However, the Board, without even intimating the petitioner as to how the said financial loss is alleged against the petitioner and without even asking him to show cause, has directed him to pay the amount. Annexure ''H'' the resolution passed by the Board of Directors and the demand made in pursuance of the same, are admittedly without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner.

Sri Subba Rao, learned counsel submits that if the respondent - Bank is permitted, the Bank will issue show cause notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Considering the said submission, I find it suffice to direct the respondent - Bank to issue show cause notice, hear the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate order within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.