- (1.) The petitioner, prior to his dismissal from service of the Bank, respondent no.1 following disciplinary proceedings, was functioning as Manager at branch office Bhimpur in the district of Midnapore.
(2.) The Chief Manager of the Zonal Office of the Bank at Calcutta issued charge sheet against the petitioner containing 12 (twelve) articles of charge vide charge sheet dated 9.9.1992. Most of the charges related to perfunctory discharge of duty by the petitioner leading to the likelihood of the bank facing huge financial loss. The petitioner in his reply to the charge sheet denied the material allegations levelled against him. The explanation furnished by the petitioner not having been found satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted by appointing an enquiry officer to unearth the truth. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 3.12.1993 returning the following findings: CHARGES FINDINGS I. Shri Hembram during incumbency at PO Bhimpur sanctioned loans under various categories of PS Advances with the connivance of the supplier and did not ensure compliance of Banks procedures for sanctioning and disbursement of loans PROVED II. Shri Hembram had accommodated same parties and their relatives by sanctioning various loans without adhering to the Banks guidelines and procedures at PO Bhimpur. PROVED III. Shri Hembram allowed loans to fake and impersonated persons. He sanctioned loans through middlemen/fake suppliers PROVED who did not supply the materials as per sanction. IV. Shri Hembram did not ensure verification of securities and as a result securities were missing in a large number of accounts and Banks interest is jeopardized. PROVED V. Shri Hembram sanctioned large number of loans for purchase of pumpsets in connivance with the suppliers at PO Bhimpur. He gave false certificate for end-use verification and did not ensure Banks procedures and jeopardized Banks interest. PROVED VI. Shri Hembram had allowed to expire the limitation in loan accounts at PO Bhimpur and jeopardized Banks interest. PROVED on the basis of admission by Shri Hembram. VII. Shri Hembram failed to obtain insurance cover in 80 accounts at PO Bhimpur and jeopardized Banks interest. PROVED on the basis of admission by Shri Hembram. VIII. Shri Hembram did not obtain proper documents of loan accounts at PO PROVED except item No.B (iii), E and F. Bhimpur while sanctioning priority sector loans. IX. Shri Hembram did not ensure postsanction follow up for recovery of Banks dues and failed to lodge DI&CGC claim in protested advance accounts at PO Bhimpur and jeopardized Banks interest. PROVED except accounts under items No.IX (b) and IX (c). X. Shri Hembram at PO Bhimpur had incurred expenditure under various heads beyond his vested powers unauthorizedly. NOT PROVED. XI. Shri Hembram at PO Bhimpur did not deposit Rs. 2600/- to the depositors account, instead pocketed the money. When the fact came to light, he deposited the amount to S/F A/c of depositor after about 4 months and the interest thereon was also deposited. PROVED. XII. Shri Hembram while working as OIC at PO Chilkigarh from 3/1/86 to 12/5/90 sanctioned loans under various Priority Sector schemes and did not ensure PROVED on the basis of admission by Shri Hembram. proper en-use of funds. He also failed to make recoveries in all these accounts and put sizable funds of the bank in jeopardy.
(3.) The report of enquiry alongwith letter dated 25.9.1993 was furnished to the petitioner seeking his comments. He did not submit his comments. A further opportunity was extended to him vide letter dated 8.12.1993. However, the petitioner did not respond. It was presumed that he had nothing to say in respect of the report of the enquiry officer. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the disciplinary authority concurred with the report of the enquiry officer and decided to dismiss the petitioner from service of the bank with immediate effect in terms of regulation 4(h) of the banks Officer Employees (D&A) Regulations, 1977 (hereafter the said Regulations). By his order dated 28.3.1994, the disciplinary authority communicated the order of dismissal. It was further ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled to any salary for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance already paid.;