Mihir Kr. Jha, J.:— Heard Mr. Yadubans Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh No. 1, learned counsel appearing on be half of Punjab National Bank and its officials.
2. Prayer in this writ application of the petitioner reads as follows:—
“(a) To quash the mechanical order dated. 16.4.2008 (Annexure-5) inflicting major penalty by the Deputy General Manager (Zone). Disciplinary Authority, Patna (the respondent no. 4);
(b) To quash the cryptic order dated 28.8.2008(Annexure-6.A). passed by the General Manager, HRD HO, the Appellate Authority (respondent no. 3);
(c) To quash the order dated 4.12.2008(Annexure-7.A) passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing. Director, Reviewing Authority (respondent no. 2).,
(d) And consequently quash the entire connected disciplinary proceeding holding that the proceeding is unwarranted and is out fruit of prejudicial stand of the biased respondents.
(e) Command the respondents di-, reeting them not to harass the petitioner rather to provide all the conse quential and career avenues benefits to the petitioner to which the petitioner is otherwise entitled.”.
3. Mr. Giri with reference to the aforementioned relief would submit that the impugned order of punishment is wholly unsustainable, inasmuch as, charges framed against the petitioner, in fact, did not amount to misconduct specially when the Bank was not put to any loss. He had also submitted that the impugned order of punishment in keeping with the bright career of the petitioner is both disproportionate and harsh. At the outset it must be noted that Mr. Giri did not point out any procedural infirmity in the departmental proceeding and had concentrated on the merits of the charges.
4. In the opinion of this Court, exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be extended for examining merits of the charges or sufficiency of the evidence. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘B.C Chaturvedi v. Union of India’ reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749.
5. As a matter of fact, from the memo of charge it would appear that the petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding for the following misconduct:—
“While working as Manager/Sr Manager at BO, Exhibition Road, Patna from 11.10.1999 to 27.4.2002, Sri. Dharmendra Sinha is alleged to have committed the following lapses/irregularities, thereby jeopardizing the interest of the bank.
Article-I
He recommended a CC limit in favour of M/s Maruti Automobiles in violation of bank's extant guidelines. He also did not enforce post sanction control in the account, thereby jeopardizing bank's interest.
Thus, Sri Dharmendra Sinha failed to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence and also failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and committed misconduct in terms of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations’ 1977.”
“(a) The above loan was recommended by him without obtaining 100%. collateral security by way of mortgage in terms of extant guidelines.
(b) On very first day, i.e 13.4.2002, an amount of Rs. 24,04,800/- was disbursed (draft+draft commission) by way of bank drafts in favour of M/s Enkay International, Siliguri, West Bengal for supply of car glasses which were not supplied as such no security was cre-, ated out of the said fund. He did not initiate effective follow up measures to safeguard Bank's interest.
Due to the above lapses, an amount of Rs. 20.12 lacs outstanding in the account plus interest is proving difficult of recovery.”
6. The disciplinary authority in the light of the materials on record had on the basis of materials on record on the aforesaid charges had arrived following findings:—
“Charge I (a)
The CO has put forth that a letter (DE-10) was kept in file to create EM of IP worth Rs. 16 lacs by second guarantor Shri S.R Ahmad but E.M was not created at a later date at the branch. Further he has argued that the flat of Smt. Gesu Parveen is worth Rs. 20.56 lacs as per the latest valuation and it is sufficient to cover bank's dues.
The contention of the CO is not acceptable because the letter for deposit of title deeds to create equitable mortgage (DE-10) is blank and contains only the signature of one of the guarantors. EM of IP worth Rs. 13.90 lacs only was created (ME-2, 4) for a limit of Rs. 25 lacs whereas as per bank's guidelines (ME-7/10) collateral security by way of mortgage of immovable properties is to be obtained for at least 100-% of the loan amount for limits above Rs. 20 lacs.
In view of the above I agree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and hold charge I (a) as proved.”
Charge I(b)
The CO has put forth that loan amount was released as working capi tal for an existing unit based on the stocks available at that time and as per bank's guidelines. He has stated that he was relieved from the branch 14 days after the release of the loan and there are no lapses on his part. No evidence has been produced during the course of enquiry to prove the charge that CO did not initiate effective follow up measures to safeguard bank's interest.
In view of the above I agree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority that and hold Charge 1(b) as not proved.
7. The evidences quoted above reveal that the CO recommended a CC limit in favour of M/s Maruti Automobiles in violation of bank's guidelines. I concur with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and hold Article-1 as partly proved to the extent as observed above.
8. Thus, with due application of mind, I hold Shri Dharmendra Singh guilty of the proven charges.”
9. Based on the aforesaid findings the disciplinary authority had inflicted a major punishment. The appeal of the petitioner against the aforementioned order of punishment was also considered by the appellate authority, who in the appellate order having noted the following points urged by the petitioner, i.e,
“4.1 The Guarantee of S.R Ahmad & Gesu Paryeen. NSC of RS. 1 Lakh (present value) negative lien on land at Anishabad, Patna worth Rs. 16 Lacs (as original sale deed was not delivered by the registry office) were taken. Certified copy of the registered sale deed was obtained alongwith the receipt for obtaining the original sale deed from the registry office. As such, the borrower gavel power to the bank to receive the original sale deed from the registry office and create the mortgage over the same. Legal opinion, valuation report, mutation certificate and the current rent receipts from the revenue authority regarding the said land was also obtained. This contention was admitted by the then Incumbent Incharge (DW-1) in his deposition in the enquiry. Apart from that negative lien on the premise/building of Maruti Automobiles worth Rs. 40 lacs, mortgage of residential flat of Gesu Parveen worth Rs. 13.90 lacs, was obtained.
4.2 An extension of the mortgage on IP of SR Ahmad was obtained and he had clearly given his letter of intention to create mortgage on his property worth Rs. 31.21 lacs for which original title deed, rent receipt, valuation report, legal opinion was already with the bank as he was a borrower of the bank. Surplus value of the said property was used in the loan under reference. An undertaking/letter of intention to create mortgage from the borrower was also obtained for the mortgage of flat at Kulhariya Complex, Patna worth Rs. 20 lacs as the flat was not registered in his name till then.
4.3 The loan was sanctioned on 11.4.2002 and the appellant was trans ferred from the branch on 27th April, 2002. As such he was not in a position to make the post sanction follows up in the account. The borrower is repaying the loan amount and guarantee is also available in the account:
4.4 The orders of the Disciplinary Authority are non-speaking, mechanical and erroneous and is the result of non application of judicial mind. Charges have neither been proved beyond the reasonable doubt nor the case of the appellant has been considered in its entirety and is based on conjecture and surmises. The quantum of punishment is disproportionate to charge which is also not proved beyond doubt.”
had recorded his findings in the following manner:—
“I have examined the points raised by Shri Sinha in his appeal alongwith records of the case. I observe that as per L & A circular no. 56 dated 9.6.1998, collateral security (at least 100% of loan amount) by way of mortgage including equitable mortgage of IPs be obtained for limits above Rs. 20 lacs whereas the loan was recommended by the appellant after taking into account the IP worth Rs. 13.90 lacs only of Smt. Gesu Parveen, guarantor alongwith NSCs worth face value of Rs. 50,000/-. Negative lien on properties does not meet the guidelines of the above referred circu-. lar. The contention of the appellant that an extension of the mortgage on IP of S.R Ahmad was also obtained by obtaining letter of intention to create mortgage on his property worth Rs. 31.21 lacs is not tenable as blank letter was obtained (only signed) for deposit of title deed 6ut letter of continuity for extending the coverage of the mortgaged property to the CC limit of Rs. 25.00 lacs was not obtained from Shri Ahmad as the property was already mortgaged with the bank in an overdraft account limit of Rs. 15.00 lacs. The disciplinary authority passed the orders after detailed assessment of the evidence held on record, of the enquiry.”
10. The appellate authority, in fact, took lenient view of the matter and had reduced the punishment by reduction of one stage lower in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with further di-. rections that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction. Such consideration by the appellate authority would go to show that the appellate authority had not only directed himself to the ‘specific issue raised by the petitioner but had also partly allowed the appeal by reducing punishment.
11. Thereafter petitioner's review application filed before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Bank was also rejected by a reasoned order as contained in Annexure-7.A in the following terms:—
“have examined the points raised by Shri Sinha in his review petition alongwith records of the case and ob serve that:—
6.1 The contention of the petitioner that it was not mandatory for the Sanctioning Authority to sanction the proposal of M/s Maruti Automobile recommended by the petitioner is not tenable as while appraising the case as a recommending authority, he cannot absolve his responsibility. Sanction by the sanctioning authority on the basis of deficient recommendations does not belie the lapse on the part of the petitioner.
6.2 As per L.A Circular No. 56 dated 9.6.1998, for limits above Rs. 20 lacs, collateral security, at least 100% of loan amount, by way of mortgage/equitable mortgage of IPs was to be obtained. Contention of the petitioner that the cause of account becoming NPA was not the value of security available to the Bank is not maintainable. Record reveals that the security proposed by the petitioner in the shape of continuation of charge on the property of Sh. S.R Ahmad already mortgaged with the branch in OD limit of Rs. 15 lacs to a proprietorship firm of Sh. S.R Ahmad is not enforceable against the cash credit limit of Rs. 25.00 lacs to M/s Maruti Automobiles as the letter of continuity to cover this facility was not taken from Sh. S.R Ahmad. Blank letter of intent to mortgage immovable property taken from Sh. S.R Ahmad is superfluous as neither the same relates to the IP of Sh. S.R Ahmad already mortgage with the branch nor any purpose for taking the letter of intent was mentioned anywhere in the branch record. So, it is established that the guidelines of obtaining -100% collateral security were not adhered by the petitioner while recommending cash credit limit of Rs. 25.00 lacs to M/s Maruti Automobiles. The present outstanding in the account is Rs. 13.87 lacs plus recorded interest of Rs. 11.07 lacs whereas realizable value of the security available in the account is Rs. 12.42 lacs.
I therefore, do not find any merit to interfere with the order of the Appel-, late Authority imposing the major penalty of ‘Reduction by one stage lower in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with further directions that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay’ by modifying the order dated 16.4.2008 of the Disciplinary Authority. The review peti-.tion of Shri Sinha is therefore, rejected.”
12. In the opinion of this Court such threadbare consideration of the case of petitioner by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the reviewing authority would lead hardly any scope for further judicial review especially when counsel for the petitioner could not point out any infirmity in the procedure adopted in course of departmental proceeding. Submission of Mr. Giri by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘State of M.P v. Bani Singh reported in 1990 Supp SCC 738 and in the case of Moni Shankar v. Union of India’ reported in (2008) 3 SCC 484 : [2008 (3) PLJR (SC) 292], seems to be also wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, in those cases it was recorded that the disciplinary authority had held the delinquent guilty without there being any evidence, to prove the charges. Such are not the facts of the present case.
13. The last part of submission of Mr. Giri that on account of the alleged isconduct on the part of the petitioner t??? Bank had not been put to any loss has to be taken from two angles. In fact, it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority’ reported in (1997) 4 SCC 565 that even if there be no loss caused to the Bank on account of misconduct, but if the Bank's amount advanced to by an officer in violation of the circular becomes difficult for realization that by itsel??? would be good ground for inflicting punishment.
14. Secondly it would also not be correct to say that on account of misconduct committed by the petitioner in granting loan to M/s Maruti Automobiles, the Bank was not put to loss, inasmuch as, Bank's 2.12 lacs amount remained outstanding for long period which became difficult to be recovered as was ultimately held by the disciplinary authority in the impugned order and thereafter affirmed by the appellate authority. In that view of the matter, this Court would find that the impugned order of punishment of the original authority which was affirmed by the appellate authority does not suffer from any error so as to be interfered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. That being so, this application is dismissed. There would be however no order as to costs.
Comments