AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Writ Petition is filed challenging proceedings of the 3rd respondent, dated 06.05.2011, by which, proceedings of the 2nd respondent disciplinary authority dated 18.11.2006 was confirmed.
Petitioner joined the 1st respondent bank during 1985 as Branch Manager. While so, a charge sheet dated 10.01.2005 was issued with following charges:
Charge I
“ Sanctioned fresh loans to 9 borrowers whose accounts were written off by Head Office basing on charge sheeted officers recommendation without referring the issue to the competent authority. The fresh loans sanctioned have become irregular and repayments are not forth coming thereby jeopardizing the interest of the bank and causing loss to the bank.”
Charge II
“ Failed to obey the instructions of Head Office with regard to sanction and release of advance sanctioned loans to the borrowers whose accounts were written off even though discretionary powers were suspended w.e.f. 25.05.2002 vide Lr.No. GMS’s/F/419/2002-03, dated 24.05.2002.”
It is stated that an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the above-said charges. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, it was concluded that charge No. I was held proved and charge No.II was held not proved. The enquiry report was submitted on 10.08.2005 for which, the petitioner is stated to have submitted a detailed explanation dated 30.10.2006.
The 2nd respondent Disciplinary Authority proposed punishment of ‘reduction of basic pay by two stages in the time scale for a period of two years. He will not earn any increment to his pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponement of his future increments.’ Aggrieved by the finding of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an Appeal to the 3rd respondent Board of Directors on 28.12.2006. The Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal by its order dated 18.04.2007. Questioning the said order, the petitioner is stated to have filed Writ Petition No. 26123 of 2010 which was allowed by order dated 25.10.2011 setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another detailed representation dated 12.01.2011 for consideration by the Appellate Authority. The complaint of the petitioner is that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Appeal was re-considered on merits and was rejected by the order impugned.
The Chairman, Deccan Grameena Bank filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents stating that the Appellate Authority considered the relevant material and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. It is denied that the 3rd respondent while confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the case in a proper perspective and ignored relevant aspects. It is prayed that contents of the charge sheet dated 10.01.2006, order of the 2nd respondent dated 18.11.2006 and the order dated 16.03.2011 may be treated as part of this affidavit.
Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Ravinder Rao submits that both the Authorities have failed to examine the matter from the point of view of the bona fide conduct of the petitioner which earned business and profits to the bank while fulfilling the primary object of the bank of supporting the marginal farmers. It is submitted that the respondent authorities ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to recover the interest due from the borrowers as had been the practice wherever such inadvertent errors creep in. Ultimately, the learned counsel asserts that the punishment imposed in the fact situation is totally disproportionate to the misconduct said to have been done by the petitioner.
Heard learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank Sri S. Udayachala Rao.
Perused the Enquiry Report dated 10.08.2005. As regards the charge that petitioner failed to adhere to the guidelines of the bank and sanctioned fresh loans to the borrowers whose accounts were written-off without referring to the competent authority, the Enquiry Officer observed that ‘now the issue is whether a borrower is eligible for a fresh loan who is black-listed after repayment of dues, if so, whether Branch Manager has powers to sanction loans to such borrowers’. To the first question, the Enquiry Officer was of the opinion that the borrower becomes eligible for a fresh loan after repayment of total dues on par with any other person. In respect of five borrowers on the basis of the evidence brought before him, total due amount was not collected, in such a situation, eligibility for fresh loan does not arise. Further, it was observed that the Branch Manager is the recommending authority and the head office is the competent authority to write-off the loans and in the absence of specific guidelines permitting the Branch Manager to sanction loans, the power to sanction loans rests with the Authority who has powers to write-off loans i.e. the head office in the present case. It was therefore, concluded that the petitioner sanctioned ten loans amounting to Rs.1,69,250/- as mentioned in column No.13 of Annexure-I to the written-off account borrowers or to their family members by collecting Rs.46,420/- as against the amount to be recovered Rs.62,881/-.
As regards the other charge, the Enquiry Officer basing on the evidence of Sri B. Raja Rao, the then Area Manager (Controlling Officer) who stated that Head Office has received several representations from public for sanction of sufficient crop loan limits, the then Chairman Sri G. Subrahmanyam and himself discussed the issue and permitted petitioner to enhance crop loans to the deserving to the extent of 20% over the previous limit and seek Head Office conformation. Further, he permitted petitioner to sanction loans in deserving and limited cases in respect of SHGMTL’s over phone. Accordingly, petitioner was permitted to release SHG MTL loans over phone and no written permission was given to that extent. Further, he stated that the loan released by the Branch Manager was confirmed by him. In cross-examination, he admitted that permission was given orally over phone to avoid delay. Hence, it was concluded that the said charge was not proved.
In his explanation dated 30.10.2006, petitioner put-forward his case that to safeguard the interest of the bank, he recovered the written-off loans from nine borrowers before granting fresh crop loans to them; all of them are tribals with negligible means; while sanctioning loans, their recovery was ensured by having a tie-up with Nizam Sugar Factory, Bodhan. It is his further case that previously also, his successors in the branch granted loans to the same borrowers by enhancing their limits. It is stated that there are no clear-cut circular instructions barring sanction of loan blacklisted farmers of written-off accounts even after their repayment of old dues. When dues were paid by the borrowers concerned, they are no more blacklisted and they become eligible for loans on par with other farmers, so the failure to adhere to the guidelines of the bank does not arise. It is further stated that after sanctioning fresh loans in the wake of their repayment of old written off dues, the limits were renewed two to three times successfully during his tenure at the branch also paid ATL instalments promptly.
Petitioner along with the material papers, annexed the certificates of appreciation which clearly show that he was awarded for the outstanding performance in recovering the dues during the year 1991-92 among their 71 branches and for excellence in linkage of SHGs. The contention of learned counsel is that disciplinary authority failed to examine the matter from the point of view of his bona fide conduct which earned business and profits to the bank. This Court finds some force in the contention of learned counsel. In view of the same and also in the light of the evidence of defence witness Sri B. Raja Rao, this Court is of the opinion that the appellate authority is not right in supporting the order of the disciplinary authority. The orders impugned are therefore, liable to be set aside.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order dated 06.05.2011 of the 3rd respondent and the order dated 18.11.2006 of the 2nd respondent. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.