SIDDHARTH,J. - (1.) Heard Shri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gopal Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition praying for quashing of the appellate order dated 12.4.2010 passed by respondent No. 3 and punishment order dated 24.8.2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which major penalty of removing from service, which shall not be disqualification for future employment has been imposed upon the petitioner by the respondent No. 2.
(3.) Petitioner's case is that while serving as officer in scale II of the bank in Harsh Nagar Branch , Kanpur and thereafter while working in Lal Bangla Branch,he sanctioned five loans to the borrowers which become bad and he was suspended from service by order dated 19.1.2007 in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry. Charge sheet dated 19.5.2006 was issued to the petitioner and he submitted his reply dated 31.5.2007. The departmental inquiry was commenced on 14.7.2008 and concluded on 7.2.2009.The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 20.4.2009 before the disciplinary authority respondent No. 2 and inquiry officer recorded the following findings:- "In my final words I would like to say that the all the five charges levelled against CSO Mr. N.C. Bharadwaj has been proved conclusively. He has recommended the proposals of housing loans of Smt. Sadhana Dixit and Sri Vikram Dixit and Mrs. Mamta Mishra and Sri Arisudan Mishra at Harsh Nagar branch and upon his transfer to Lal Bangla branch on 29.6.2006, he sanctioned one more advance to Mr. Vikaram Dixit and Smt. Sadhana Dixit for purchase of vehicle under Autofin Scheme and thereafter two more advances one to Mr. Vikram Dixit and Ramji Shukla and other hosing loan to Smt. Mohini Chaturvedi, Mahesh Chaturvedi and Vinay Chaturvedi these two loans were also brought to the lal Bnagla branch by Mr. Vikram Dixit. He failed in his duty to club the liabilities of the various person involved in the accounts and did obtain the status reports on the existing accounts of Harsh Nagar branch. There was visible attempt to conceal these facts regarding existing liabilities of person to whom facilities have been sanctioned at Lal Bangla branch by CSO Mr. N.C. Bharadwaj as Senior Branch Manager. The entire documentary evidence brought before the enquiry and deposition of various witnesses has brought horrible story in the light. In his letter to investigating officer Mr. S.P. Chatterjee CSO Mr. N.C. Bharadwaj himself has described the entire episode as a broad day loot. During the course of enquiry nothing was found to be correct in any of the above five loans. Right from the identification of the applicants and verification of their credentials their business activities, there income or income tax returns or Pan cards/identification of proposed guarantor and verification of their credential/verification of proposed vendors and their identity/identification of proposed properties correct and property papers/obtention of the proper legal opinion in respect of the properties. The failure of CSO on these counts has resulted into a truth that obsoletely nothing was found to be correct/reliable. The securities are there, the persons taken as borrowers/guarantors are impersonators, the sellers of the properties were inpertionators/fake the title deeds are fake in nature found registered and registered ones are fake due to execution of impersonators. The defence has brought any solid documents/witnesses before the enquiry to disprove the charge or negate the contents of the various documentary evidences produced. The deposition of the various witnesses during the cross examination of the management witnesses or the defence witnesses , the defence mainly focused on certain set questions such as "Who was handling the loan applications, working in the credit department, there was office order registrar , what written in Audit Report/SAR submitted by branches/what was the mode of communication in the branch. What was the status of account on various dates at Harsh Nagar branch when CSO considered the loan application at Lal Bangla branch was proper and his details were correctly recorded in the related documents. The fact remains that the loan were granted to the persons brought by the fraudstar Mr. Vikram Dixit and every thing or every person brought by him be it credentials/persons/project name anything was accepted on the face value without verifications/identifications of the same. The reports submitted by inspecting official Mr. R.C. Jatav in two accounts were eye openers but the CSO thought it fit to sideline the same by making his own assessment and proceeded with sanctioning of further advances which unfortunately turned out to be a fiasco. While considering all the five accounts the CSO Mr. N.C. Bharadwaj has observed the guidelines of the HO circular 99/66 dated 21.7.2005 produced before the enquiry as ME-33 full set in which the role and responsibilities of the recommending officials and sanctioning authority at branch level have been clearly defined. At no point any deviation was neither advised nor the acceptability of the deviation was commented upon. The compliance of the HO cir no. 97/12 dated 10.04.03(ME-13) HO cir. No. 99/103dated 03.10.05 (ME- 14) and HO cir. no. 99/144 dated 20.12.2005 were complied with on the relevant junctures. There was attempt made to carry out the post sanction inspection and the very fist inspection made by Sri S.R. Yadav blew the lid off and all the forgeries and frauds committed were surfaced.";