Sunil Ambwani, R.M.Chauhan - (1.) -Heard Shri H. R. Misra, senior advocate assisted by Shri K. M. Misra for the petitioner. Sri K. N. Misra appears for respondent-bank.
(2.) SHRI Vishwa Bharti Arya, the petitioner was appointed as District Manager/Senior Manager by direct recruitment in U. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. on 11.4.1994. He was promoted as Asstt. General Manager/Regional Manager on 3.3.2000. In the relevant period between 16.4.1996 to 1.7.1998 he was posted as Senior Manager at branch and District Pilibhit. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 23.1.1999 by serving upon him a charge-sheet in respect of irregularities in disbursement of loans during his tenure of posting at Pilibhit. In the enquiry report dated 23.1.1999 he was found guilty of only one out of 15 charges and partially guilty of two charges. He was punished with withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect by order dated 29.1.2000. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, U. P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board. The appeal was allowed on 5.7.2000 and the punishment order was quashed. After seven years once again the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for disbursing loans during his tenure at Pilibhit. He was placed under suspension on 2.8.2005. In Writ Petition No. 1390 (S/B) of 2005 the Lucknow Bench of the High Court disposed of the writ petition on 22.8.2005 directing the disciplinary enquiry to be completed within stipulated time, failing which the suspension order shall stand revoked.
(3.) A charge-sheet dated 29.8.2005 was served upon the petitioner with seven charges. The charge No. 1 related to the disbursement of loan to 80 persons on the security of leased lands under the Government Grants Act, 1980, of which borrowers were not in possession. The charge No. 2 related to 111 out of 418 cases of loans disbursed under the Government Grants Act in which no recovery could be made. The charge No. 3 was in relation to disbursing loans to 158 persons, who were defaulters of the bank, in violation of bank norms and loaning procedure. The charge No. 4 was to the effect that loans were disbursed to 44 defaulters in the interval of less than six months by violating bank norms. The charge No. 5 related to three more loans granted to persons in violation of bank norms. Charge No. 6 charged the petitioner with failing to assess the asset creation, the loan repaying capacity and financial position of the lessees under the Government Grants Act and the last charge No. 7 related to disbursing the loan to those borrowers, who had an old history of not repaying the loan. The petitioner requested by his letter dated 5/6.9.2005 to the enquiry officer to supply the proposed evidence. He was given photo copies of the documents containing 52 pages including the enquiry report of Regional Senior Manager, Pilibhit and verification report of Senior Manager, Pilibhit in nine pages. The remaining pages did not describe and explain any of the charges. The petitioner again requested for furnishing the material on 6.9.2005 to which he received the reply on 9.9.2005 that he was aware of all these documents. It is alleged that inspite of repeated requests, the required documents were not given to him. On 22.10.2005 the petitioner received a letter from the enquiry officer to appear before him along with supportive evidence on 28.10.2005. The petitioner requested for affording reasonable opportunity to defend himself by supplying the material to be relied upon for proving the charges against him. His letter dated 24.10.2005 was received by the enquiry officer. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer on 28.10.2005. It is stated that no enquiry was held on that date, nor any evidence was led from the side of the bank, nor the petitioner was allowed to present his case. The petitioner submitted a representation to the enquiry officer alleging that the charges are vague and that he has not been given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The application was received by the enquiry officer. The petitioner gave reminder to furnish evidence/materials proposed for proving the charges. These reminders dated 9.11.2005 and 11.11.2005 were also received by the enquiry officer. Instead of supplying the material and holding a proper enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 14.11.2005, which was placed before the Committee of Management, the appointing authority on 3.12.2005. The Managing Director held the charges to be proved and that by his order dated 6.12.2005, punished the petitioner with dismissal from service with recovery of Rs. 2 crores and odd with updated interest from the petitioner. It is alleged that after the Managing Director accepted the report a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner annexing incomplete enquiry report on 14.12.2005. The petitioner submitted a comprehensive reply alleging that charges were vague. The material in support of the charges were not given to the petitioner and that no enquiry whatsoever was made at all to prove the charges. It was also alleged that the findings on the charges were perverse and were based on surmises and conjectures.;