- (1.) We have heard Sri Manas Bhargava for the petitioner. Sri Nimai Das, appears for the respondents - Punjab & Sind Bank. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.10.2009, passed by the Reviewing Authority (General Manager-P), the order dated 22.12.2006, passed by the Appellate Authority (Dy. General Manager-P), as well as final dismissal order dated 25.9.2006, passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Zonal Manager).
(2.) The petitioner, posted as Manager in Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Office Gumti No. 5, Kanpur, was charged with following allegations : 1. Shri Gursharan Singh Duggal did not comply the indispensable requirements enumerated at point number five, nine and ten of the sanction letter No. 31, 2005-06 dated 26.9.2005 of the loan of Dr. Atul Kapoor. (a) He failed to obtain Annexure-I, and Annexure-II in terms of Law Cir. No. 126 dated 4.12.2002 from borrower and guarantor. (b) He failed to ensure before releasing the loan that trained technical staff is available at Hospital to operate the machine and after sales service is available for which banks loan has been granted. (c) He failed to obtain the Original bills/payment receipts of machines and also failed to get the hypothecated machines comprehensively insured, putting banks' fund endanger as advised vide clause number ten of Zonal Office, Lucknow sanction No. 31/2005-06 dated 26.9.2005. Then he put the Banks interest in jeopardize. 2. That Shri Gursharan Singh Duggal, asked the borrower to deposit processing fee @ 3% of the loan amount at the time of documentation, which was duly handed over by the borrower (as reported by the borrower) in cash to him. Whereas processing fee to the tune of Rs. 3,750.00 was also debited to the said loan account on 30.9.2005. On demand of the receipt by the borrower on account of 3% processing fee, the money was returned back to the borrower, informing that no processing charges are required to be paid. This clearly substantiate that he had vested interest in receiving the processing fee @ 3% of the loan amount in cash and thus he defamed the Banks' image.
(3.) The petitioner submitted his defence to the allegations that the documents submitted as DEx- 4 to 9 and 11, in compliance of the indispensable requirements enumerated at point numbers five, nine and ten of the sanction letter No. 31, 2005-06 dated 26.9.2005, were obtained by him, and were already present in the branch. They were found in some misc. files. The availability of technical staff for inspection of the machines was the responsibility of the borrower, and was to be verified by the Branch Manager of the Bank, who was the releasing authority of the loan, and he should have complied with the indispensable requirement before releasing the loan.;