Manoj Misra, J. - (1.) THIS is a second innings of the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner, who was an Officer MMG/Scale S -3 in the Bank of Baroda, was inflicted with punishment of removal from service by an order dated 05.08.2004 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The order of removal was affirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 15.02.2005. Against the order of removal from service, as also the appellate order, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 30055 of 2005, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 30.9.2010, the operative portion thereof is being reproduced below: In the result, the order dated 05.08.2004 as well as the Appellate order dated 15.02.2005 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh punishment order in accordance with the observations as made above. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The allegations against the petitioner, shorn of unnecessary details, on which the articles of charges were framed and the disciplinary proceedings were held, are being reproduced below: 1. He sanctioned and disbursed loans to -110 -borrowers under Rice Huller Modernisation Scheme during the period Sept. 01 May, 02. During assets verification conducted by the Bank on 21.06.2002, 24.06.2002 and 25.06.2002 in respect of -96 -cases under the scheme, the following irregularities were observed: a. In 54 cases, complete assets were not found installed/created. (Annexure -I). b. In following -3 -cases, borrowers were not traceable i Abrar Ahmad s/o Kallan, r/o Village Gangapur Qadim - loan disbursed Rs. 50,000/ - on 26.04.2002. (A/c - 3469) ii Munney s/o Kallan, r/o Village Gangapur Qadim - loan disbursed Rs. 50,000/ - on 26.04.2002. (A/c - 3476) iii Nanhey Lal s/o Lal Singh, r/o Village Gangapur Qadim - loan disbursed Rs. 50,000/ - on 29.04.2002. (A/c - 3480) c. In following cases, 'Manglam' Brand of Machinery has been financed, which is not approved by CSIR. As such CSIR may refuse to grant subsidy under the Scheme in these cases: i. Krishna Pal s/o Shiv Charan -Loan disbursed Rs. 50,000/ - on 26.04.2002. (A/c - 3468) ii. Shiv Charan s/o Ram Charan -Loan disbursed Rs. 50,000/ - on 06.05.2002. (A/c - 3510) iii. Bhan Pratap s/o Naubat Ram -Loan disbursed Rs. 50,000/ - on 15.04.2002. (A/c - 3440) iv. Suresh Chandra s/o Naubat Ram -Loan disbursed Rs. 50,000/ - on 15.04.2002. (A/c - 3441) d. Several units have been financed outside service area of the branch overlooking the vital aspect of supervision, monitoring and recovery of such loans e.g. e. In all the cases, pre sanction inspection reports have been prepared casually without full details viz without carrying out technical feasibility/economic viability of the unit for a particular area/village; without experience of applicant in the line of business, without ascertaining the requisite power connection/gen set with the borrower, without mentioning the period to which income/expenses/surplus income relate to and without taking into account the personal expenses of the borrower etc. A few random examples are loan accounts of Bhajan Lal, Chandra Bhan Singh, Mohd. Yamin, Dinkar and Daya Ram. f. In many accounts, back end subsidy has been credited even before repayment of the Bank Loan which is against the provisions of the scheme. A few examples are as under: g. Bills/Receipts obtained for financed machinery in all the case are without following relevant details. 1. Make/Brand 2. SERIAL No. of Machine Warranty Clause 3. TEST Report of an authorised institute For example: Term Loan a/c No. 3486 of Bhajan Lal.. Term Loan a/c No. 3488 of Chandra Bhan Singh h. Full disbursement has been made in various loan accounts (as per Annexure -I) without ensuring erection and commissioning of machinery in the premises of beneficiary and without ensuring end use of loan. i. Out of -110 -cases disbursed under the Scheme, -24 a/cs amounting to Rs. 12.98 lacs have become NPA within -1 -year of disbursement (Annexure -II). Out of remaining accounts, most of the accounts are likely to become NPA due to, large scale improper assessment of techno/economic viability of Project and reckless financing under the Scheme. (Annexure -III). 2. He sanctioned and disbursed various dairy loans without observing bank's laid down norms. Joint Assets Verification conducted by the branch on 24.06.2002 and 25.06.2002 in respect of -6 -dairy loans revealed the irregularities as per Annexure -IV.
(2.) The Disciplinary Authority, after framing the charges, appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the truth of the aforesaid allegations made against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry proceedings and recorded evidence. After the completion of production of evidence, the Presenting Officer, in his written brief, submitted before the Enquiry Officer that allegations 1(b), 1(d) and 1 (e) are not proved. The Enquiry Officer, agreeing with the Presenting Officer, in its report, held that allegations 1(b), 1(d) and 1(e) were not proved, apart from allegations 1(c) and 1(f) which were also not found proved. The Enquiry Officer, however, found allegations 1(a), 1(g), 1(h), 1(d) and 2 proved.
(3.) The Disciplinary Authority after receiving the report of the Enquiry Officer, issued a notice expressing its disagreement with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the charges, which were not found proved i.e. allegations 1(d), 1(e), 1(f) and charges IV and V. After giving notice to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to substitute the findings on its own assessment of the evidence on record. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 6.7.2004 found the aforesaid charges proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to award punishment of removal by its order dated 5.8.2004, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 15.2.2005. 4. The petitioner challenged the order of removal, as also the order of the Appellate Authority, by filing writ petition No. 30055 of 2005. This writ petition was allowed by order dated 30.9.2010. The order of removal, as also the appellate order was set aside, and the Disciplinary Authority was directed to pass fresh order in the light of the observations made in the judgment.;