- (1.) Petitioner before this Court was employed with Union Bank of India and was posted at Meston Road branch at Kanpur at the relevant time. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally with the service of chargesheet dated 20.08.2009 alongwith statement of allegations and list of documents and witnesses relied upon in support of the charges.
(2.) The charge as alleged included indiscreet financing under the Housing Loan to the detriment of bank's interest by sanctioning /disbursing 63 housing loan to various borrowers for purchase of plots and construction of houses qua Arazi Lands at Taudakpur Village and its nearby areas without ensuring KYS norms of the applicants, for not visiting the residences/work places of the applicants, not obtaining status report from their existing bankers, not verifying the evidence for the assets reported in the statements of Assets for not conducting proper pre-sanction inspection lack of proper infrastructure like water supply in the report, engagement of same panel lawyer in all the cases. Stage-wise post sanction were also not conducted while disbursing the loan payment of fee to architect, period of re-payment was beyond the retirement of the borrowers existence of bill receipt with discrepancies qua the amount deposited as margin money to the borrowers construction being not commensurate with the amount disbursed in all the cases and the loans may become non performing assets in absence of valuable security to protect the loan amount disbursed and the bank had to suffer substantial loss etc. Charge no. 2 was in respect of disbursement of loan to one Shri Amar Singh on 25.01.2005, money was permitted to be withdrawn after transferring to saving account No. 6801 standing in the name of Amar Singh on 19.05.2005, and 3rd June 2005, although, Amar Singh had expired on 16th April, 2005 resulting in fraud on the bank. Further disbursement was allowed without conducting stage-wise post sanction inspections to ensure end use of the funds. The account had turned NPA with effect from 31.07.2007 and the bank was exposed to serious financial loss in absence adequate security. Similarly in the matter of housing loan sanctioned to Shri Pratap Singh on 03.09.2004, it was alleged that the petitioner had not processed loan with due diligence resulting in fraud with the bank. He failed to identify on spot the land proposed to be purchased. The sale deed deposited with the bank to create security was non existence. Disbursement was allowed without conducting stage-wise inspection. The account become non performing with effect from 31.07.2007. Bank was exposed to serious financial loss in absence of primary security.
(3.) Since the petitioner did not accept the charges a departmental inquiry was ordered by the appointing authority. The inquiry Officer conducted the departmental inquiry as per the norms prescribed. Full and fair opportunity was offered to the petitioner, during the departmental inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted his finding dated 26.02.2010 and held that charges under Article 1 clause 4, 7, 10, 12, 13 and Article 2 clause A (i) (ii) B (ii) (iii) were proved conclusively against the delinquent employee so for as article I clauses xiv article II clause A (iii) and B (iv) were partly proved while allegations pertaining to article I clause (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vii) (ix) and (xi) and article II clause B (i) were held to be not proved. Copy of the inquiry report so received by the disciplinary authority was duly forwarded to the petitioner calling for his response to the finding recorded therein. The reply submitted by the petitioner to the inquiry report has been brought on record before us as annexure 8 to the present petition.;