RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was Branch Manager in the Union Bank of India. It appears that a charge sheet dated 3.8.1995 was issued to the petitioner which consisted of articles of charges and statement of allegations. The articles of charges include the charge of (1) Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank; (2) failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence; and (3) acting in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer. In support of the articles of charges there were statement of allegations. The statement of allegations contain details of various loans including piggery loans, pump set loans cash credit accounts of several persons, crop loans and other loan in respect of which irregularities were committed by the petitioner. In the heading of piggery loan it was alleged that the petitioner sanctioned loans amounting to Rs.18.200/- for each borrower under the Government sponsored scheme and the loans were disbursed to persons outside command area of the Branch and also beyond the laid down targets and the loans were disbursed thorough middlemen/suppliers and most of the accounts had become sticky and bad and doubtful of recovery and it was also alleged that during the course of investigation no securities were taken from the borrowers. It was also alleged that out of the loan amount of Rs.18,200 to each borrower, only Rs.8,000/- was given to the borrower and the remaining amount of Rs.10,200/- from each account was pocketed by the petitioner. The names of all account holders have been given in the statement of allegations. The names of various account holders who were granted cash credit facility in respect of which the petitioner is alleged to have committed irregularities have also been given in the allegation relating to cash credit account. Details of irregularities committed in respect of other loans have also been given.
(2.) AN enquiry was held and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 19.7.1996. A second show cause dated 26.7.1996 against the proposed punishment of dismissal was given to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 3.8.1996 and the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal on 6.12.1996. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by order dated 29.3.1997. A review application was filed by the petitioner which was unsuccessful and dismissed on 23.5.2000. Thereafter the petitioner filed a mercy petition which too has been rejected. The petitioner has challenged the punishment order. In regard to pump set account the enquiry officer has relied upon amongst other evidence the deposition of R.K. Bhatia MW-2 who deposed that during inspection the securities were found to be inadequate to cover the bank finance. The enquiry officer has referred also to the statement of Shri Prakash and Sattan Ram that they were not given the entire amount of the loan. In respect of the piggery loan the enquiry officer relied upon the statement of V.K. Pathak MW-1 apart from the other evidence. V.K. Pathak had stated that the petitioner had disbursed loan outside the command area and did not verify the end use of finance and number of loans were sanctioned and disbursed through middle man by crediting the loan amount directly to the account of the middle man instead of crediting the amount in the Savings Bank Account of the borrowers. The enquiry officer has referred to the statement of V.K. Pathak that in the case of loans to borrowers of village Birno, Sihawal and Bhadahun the loan amount was first transferred to the Savings Bank Account of the borrowers and thereafter was re-transferred to the account of the middle man/supplier. Shortage of security in respect of these loans was also found. The enquiry officer has given a detailed report in respect of the irregularities committed in the various accounts. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer did not find the allegation regarding acquisition of assets by the petitioner beyond his loan sources of income, proved. The charges which were found proved by the enquiry officer are of very serious nature and the disciplinary authority has agreed with the report of the enquiry officer.
(3.) IN Bank of India and others Vs. T. Jogram 2007 Labour Law Report 1009 it has been held by the apex court that the court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded in the disciplinary proceedings and assume the role of an appellate authority. Judicial review in such cases is not against the decision but it is against the decision making process. In State Bank of India and another Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde 2006 III Labour Law Journal 563 the apex court set aside the order of the High Court by which the High Court had set aside the punishment awarded in the disciplinary proceeding. It was held by the apex court that adjudication by the High Court is not as an appellate authority on merits by appreciation of evidence and that the High Court jurisdiction was circumscribed and confined to correct the errors of law and procedural error, if any, resulting in miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. We have heard Sri A.S. Rai counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Bhargava counsel for the respondent Bank.;