AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
I.A.No.I/2011 for a direction is filed by the petitioner to relieve the petitioner on or before 25.11.2011 on acceptance of Voluntary Retirement, to enable him to join the Central Bureau of Investigation Department, as there is an offer of appointment by the said organization which expires on 30.11.2011. The prayer in the application is the main prayer in the petition, itself. Having regard to the circumstances and the time-frame within which the petitioner may either secure employment, which is on offer, or may stand to lose the opportunity and since his very career is at stake, the present application is filed. Hence the main petition is considered for final disposal.
It is contended that the petitioner is now aged about 58 and he had entered the services of the respondents in the year 1974 at New Delhi and he rose to the current level of Deputy General Manager by December 2009. It is claimed that on promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy General Manager, he was posted at the Banks Prime Corporate Branch-II, at New Delhi and took charge of the Branch from its General Manager on 21.02.2010. This was a branch where borrowal accounts with the exposure of over Rs. 50 crore and above are only serviced. The branch amongst others had four borrowal accounts of one M/s.Positiv Group owned by a former Union Cabinet Minister with an outstanding amount of Rs. 83.93 crore and another account of M3 Media Private Limited, which was a non-performing asset with a liability of Rs.64 crore, in June 2010. The petitioner was instructed to conduct a scrutiny of staff accountability and send a report to the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank at its Head Office at Bangalore. Therefore, the petitioner had embarked on examining the relationship of M/s.Positiv Group with the bank, since January 2003. He had noticed serious irregularities. The petitioner on noticing the same, chose to write to the Central Vigilance Commission to seek its assistance in conducting investigations and the Central Vigilance Commission commenced the investigations on 04.09.2010.
It further transpires that three more of the group Companies accounts were declared as non-performing assets. The liability of the group stood at Rs. 83.93 crore. The Central Vigilance Officer of the Bank submitted a detailed investigation report to the Chairman and the Managing Director with copies to the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi. The Central Vigilance Officer of the Bank found lapses on the part of 37 officials of the Bank including erstwhile General Managers of the Bank, who later held posts such as, Chairman and Managing Director and Executive Director of other Public Sector Banks, as well as other higher officials such as General Managers, who were still in the services of the banks. Under instructions of the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, the Central Vigilance Officer of the Bank was advised to treat the case as involving fraud and to refer the same to the Board of Directors of the Bank and to the Reserve Bank of India, with a further direction to handover the case for further investigation and action through the Central Bureau of Investigation and to initiate disciplinary action against various officials. It is pursuant to which, the Bank initiated action in April 2011 and filed a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation in June 2011. The petitioner was not in the list of charged officials. However, the petitioner''s action in having exposed the irregularities was not to the liking of several functionaries and this resulted in the petitioner being transferred from New Delhi to Bangalore as on 06 10.2010. The petitioner made a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director for cancellation of the transfer. The Central Vigilance Commission had also recommended that the petitioner ought not to be transferred out of New Delhi, but he was relieved from the post as on 30.11.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to continuous harassment. He was originally posted to the Bank''s Corporate Credit Wing, but within one hour, he was advised not to take charge of the same. He was thereafter posted to another Section. He was assigned to investigate some of the borrowal accounts at Noida, New Delhi, However, he was summoned back without completion of the task. He was thereafter posted at the Card Division. Whereas his juniors were elevated, he was not considered for promotion. These instances and his personal health problems and other problems on the domestic front forced the petitioner to seek Voluntary Retirement on 29.04.2011, while issuing a three months'' statutory notice, effective from 30.07.2011. However, the Bank declined to accept the offer by its letter dated 16.07.2011, 23.07.2011 and 01.08.2011, as per Annexures ''A1'' to ''A3'', to the writ petition. It is in this background that the petitioner has now been offered an appointment with the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi as an Advisor (Banking and Foreign Trade) by a letter dated 11.05.2011.
Therefore, the petitioner had brought this to the attention of the Bank, with a request to relieve him in time, so as to enable him to join the Central Bureau of Investigation. The assignment was for a term of three years extendable by another two years and the average emolument would foe at Rs. 80,000/- p.m. The place of functioning of the new assignment would be at New Delhi, to which place the petitioner belongs. However, it is contended that the same has not been considered and has been stalled on false'' allegations that the petitioner is involved in several irregularities which are said to be under investigation and therefore, the Bank was not in a position to relieve him from service. It is in this background that the present petition is filed and since the time is fast running out for the petitioner to either report at Central Bureau of Investigation after being relieved from the respondents Bank or to forego the offer, which coming at this point of time in his life is very crucial for advancement of his career and therefore, he would submit that it is only on account of the petitioner having been a "whistle-blower" that he met with this fate and situation. It is contended that unless this Court intervenes at this point of time, the petitioner has no other alternative, but to forego the offer of employment. It is in the wake of this situation that the respondents were called upon to produce the material particulars on the basis of which, it is claimed that the petitioner is facing several cases, whereby there are allegations of irregularities which are under investigation which would be an impediment to relieve the petitioner from service.
The Counsel for the respondents has produced an Inter-Office memorandum and a letter dated 16.09.2011, whereby the Central Vigilance Commission is said to have advised the Bank to keep the case against him in abeyance till receipt of a report from the Central Bureau of Investigation. It was further contended that a complaint has been made before the Central Bureau of Investigation, which is under active investigation and it is in this background that the allegation of the petitioner is kept in abeyance.
The learned Counsel would submit that in terms of Regulation No.20(3)(ii) of the Canara Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979, would provide that an Officer against whom there are allegations of irregularities and if any disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him, he cannot be relieved from service unless the enquiry is completed in all respects and it is in this circumstance that the learned Counsel claimed that there are several allegations against the petitioner which warrants the rejection of his application for Voluntary Retirement at this point of time. 7. On a further direction by this Court, the learned counsel for the respondents have produced the actual complaint lodged before the Joint Director (BSFC) & Special IGP, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, of the case in which the petitioner is said to be embroiled. The complaint dated 14.06.2011, which runs into about thirteen pages does not refer to the petitioner at all, though several Officers are named and their role is spelt out.
It is however, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the investigation would include all Officers, apart from the ones named in the complaint, including the petitioner who was working at the relevant branch, the petitioner cannot be relieved from service, since he is also involved. In that, he was one of the Officers at the branch at the relevant point of time. It is this which is sought to be urged against the petitioner.
Further, insofar as yet another allegation involving one other entity, namely, M/s. Perfect Infosys, Nehru Palace, New Delhi, there were certain irregularities alleged against the petitioner and it is that which is also cited as an instance, whereby the respondents are prohibited from relieving the petitioner. However, insofar as the allegations pertaining to the matter of M/s.Perfect Infosys is concerned, it is noticed that the matter having been placed before the first respondent, namely, the Chairman and Managing Director, has opined that there is no case made out against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner is denied his request for being relieved from service.
It is in this situation that the present application is made. The petition itself would be rendered infructuous, if the petitioner''s case is not addressed at this point of time. In view of the respondents taking a stance that the petitioner cannot be relieved from service, it would be a situation where the head of the Bank, namely, the Chairman and the Managing Director would have to intervene to address the particulars of the allegations which, prima facie, appeal to this Court to be baseless, insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to accordingly, take a positive decision as to whether the petitioner can be relieved from service, since there is no consensus on the part of the respondents to relieve the petitioner from service, would be forcing the authority of this Court on the respondent Bank. It would be more appropriate if a judicious decision is taken by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank in consultation with the superior Officers of the Bank, who should be able to address the ''circumstances more closely and which, on a prima facie test, according to this Court, does not reveal any serious allegations against the petitioner and if the petitioner is indeed eligible to be relieved from service, he shall be accorded such sanction at tne earliest, in any event, before 30.11.2011 to enable the petitioner to take up the alternative employment, that is now on offer. This, as a responsible employer, the respondents would be obliged to do, having regard to the circumstance that the petitioner was indeed responsible for exposing the irregularities in the first place and he ought not to be punished for doing so. This is a glaring circumstance that is apparent to this Court.
Accordingly, the petition itself is disposed of with the above directions which shall be complied with by the respondents forthwith.
In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A. 1/2011 stands disposed of.