- (1.) Petitioner was working as a Branch Manager, Kshetriya Gramin bank, Narhi Branch, Ballia at the relevant time. He has preferred this petition challenging the validity and correctness of order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the Board of Directors, Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ballia, respondent no. 2 and order dated 28.2.2008 passed by the Chairman/Disciplinary Authority, Ballia Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ballia, respondent no. 1, imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of two years and imposing further penal interest on simple interest over loss caused to the bank by the petitioner.
(2.) It appears from the record that the petitioner had been found guilty of irregularities,misconduct and negligence in terms of Ballia Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1980. He was issued a charge sheet dated 26.11.1987 for the aforesaid acts vide Annexure-CA-1 to counter affidavit. In the enquiry conducted, he was found guilty of the charges and was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter notice was issued for imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment, which was passed vide order dated 28.2.2008. The appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of punishment dated 28.2.2008, was also dismissed by the Board of Directors, Ballia Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ballia in its meeting. This order was challenged by him by means of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33224 of 1990 (Surendra Pratap Singh versus Ballia Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ballia and others), which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.5.1996. From the record, it appears that Charge no. 1 is to the effect that the petitioner had committed wrong while handing over bank draft directly to Narendra Pratap Singh and Harendra Pratap Singh, who were loanees of the sanctioned amount, instead of handing it over to the dealer of tractor agency M/s Khurana Agencies in whose favour the said bank draft was made for purchase of tractor by the loanees. It appears from the charge sheet that the loanees, Sri Narendra Pratap Singh and Harendra Pratap Singh who had taken loan, mis-used the draft in the name of the dealer agency, handed over to them by the delinquent employee. Charge no. 2 levelled against the petitioner was regarding his past proceedings after finalization of the loan.
(3.) The impugned orders passed by the appellate authority as well as disciplinary authority are assailed on the ground that while issuing show cause notice, respondent no. 2 wrongly held that charge no. 2 stood proved on the ground that borrower property was not mortgaged nor any step was taken by the petitioner in this regard, whereas from a perusal of letter dated 19.4.1999 issued by the petitioner to Sub-Registrar, Tehsil, Ballia, it is evident that the petitioner sent mortgage deed with the request to the Sub-Registrar to send back to him after doing needful. It is stated that it has wrongly been stated in the show-cause notice that no action was taken by him even after receipt of the letter dated 25.6.1999 issued by M/s. Khurana Automobiles, Varanasi by which it was informed by the dealer that neither payment was received against the drafts nor borrowers turned up for actual delivery of tractor in pursuance of loan sanctioned by the bank. It is averred that the appellate authority as well as disciplinary authority passed the impugned orders completely ignoring the defence taken by the petitioner and as such, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary.;