SHEO PRASAD SAHU Vs. RANCHI KSHETRIYA GRAMIM BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 25th August, 2000 (Annexure -7), imposing a punishment of reduction by four stages in the incremental scale of pay has been inflicted upon the petitioner, which is under challenge in the present writ application. The appellate order dated 23rd April, 2001 (Annexure 8) confirming the order of punishment is also under challenge by the petitioner.

(3.) THE statement of allegations in support of the charges giving description of the persons in whose favour the loans were said to be disbursed by such fake loan disbursement processes have been indicated in respect of the three charges. The statement of allegation also alleges that the said loans were to be given to identified persons out of the amounts sanctioned under the Integrated Rural Development Programme of the Government and the petitioner being the Branch Manager was required to credit the loan accounts released by the Government of India and also to select loanees eligible for the said relief within the stipulated framework of the Scheme relating to Agriculture Debt Relief Scheme, 1990. In respect of the charges it is alleged that his acts of disbursement of fake loans in 14 accounts was unbecoming of a Bank Officer and is charged for misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 19 of the Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staffs Service Regulations, 1981. In respect of third charge also the description of the person in whose favour the said fake loans were disbursed are also indicated showing the retention of a balance amount of Rs. 4731.10 Paise after liquidation of two earlier fake loan accounts on 9th August, 1992 which is again misconduct under the Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staffs Service Regulations, 1981. The inquiry report was submitted after conclusion of the inquiry on 24th December, 1998 (Annexure 3). In respect of each of the three charges, the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be established and proved against the petitioner.