- (1.) This writ petition was filed in the year 1988 by a Senior Manager of the respondent bank, who worked initially as a Clerk in the Imperial Bank of India and then with the respondent bank for a period of 39 years, challenging the charge sheet dated December 14, 1981, entire disciplinary proceedings thereon, the report of the Enquiry Officer, the order of recommendation passed by the respondent No. 4, the final order passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated, the appellate order passed by the respondent No.3 and the order passed by the respondent No.6 rejecting the application for review. Very many points had been urged in the writ petition in support of the challenge thrown to the charge sheet, proceedings pursuant thereto and the orders passed therein, but at the hearing the same was restricted to denial of natural justice during the course of the enquiry for not supplying the documents and denial of natural justice for not supplying the vigilance report, which, according to the petitioner, was considered while taking the decision for completion of the disciplinary proceedings.
(2.) The charge sheet, in the instant case, is dated December 14, 1981. It was alleged in the charge sheet that when the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of Biplabi Rash Behari Basu Road Branch of the respondent bank between February, 1978 and August, 1979, the petitioner granted/sanctioned loans in excess of his authority. It was also contended in the charge sheet that the petitioner while granting/sanctioning such loans to a large number of Transport Operators did not make scrutiny of the relative proposals. It was also alleged that even before completion of the necessary formalities and without making any discrete enquiries as to the creditworthiness of the borrowers/guarantors made such grant/ sanction. It was also the contention of the respondent bank in the charge sheet that in the matter of making such grant/sanction the petitioner by doing everything himself took upon the responsibility alone instead of collective responsibility of other officers of the bank. At the enquiry stage the petitioner was asked by the Enquiry Officer to submit a list of additional defence documents by March 31, 1982 and also the list of additional witnesses within the same time. On March 31, 1982 the petitioner represented that he will submit a list of defence witnesses and documents within a couple of days. On April 3, 1982 the petitioner submitted a list of witnesses and documents. The list first mentioned the names of the witnesses. It then mentioned the documents. These documents were not produced. The petitioner did not object to the non-production of the said documents. The petitioner was asked to file his notes on defence. The petitioner filed his defence arguments. In that also it was not pointed out that the documents as were called for by the petitioner were not produced. It was also not pointed out that for non-supply of the documents how the petitioner has been prejudiced. The enquiry report was then submitted. In that it was held that the charges against the petitioner stand proved. Thereafter a note was prepared by the Disciplinary Authority for the Appointing Authority to pass the appropriate order. In that the charges against the petitioner, findings of the Enquiry Authority and the comments of the Disciplinary Authority were furnished in a tabular form. Thereafter on April 14, 1983 the Appointing Authority passed the following order: "1.I refer to the charge sheet dated December 14, 1981 served on you by the Disciplinary Authority and the enquiry into the charges conducted by Shri A.R. Banerjee, Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries. The findings of the Inquiring Authority have since been received. A copy of the findings of the Inquiring Authority is enclosed. 2. The Disciplinary Authority has considered the findings of the Inquiring Authority and has accepted his findings. A copy of the note dated June 16, 1983 containing the findings of the Disciplinary Authority together with his discussions in a tabular form is enclosed. 3. I have considered the records pertaining to the enquiry in their entirety and agree with the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. 4. Taking into account the gravity of acts of misconduct established against you, I have decided to impose upon you the penalty of 'dismissal' from Bank's service in terms of Rule 49(h) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules read with Rule 50(3)(iii) ibid. Accordingly you are hereby dismissed from the Bank's service effective from the date of receipt of this letter by you. 5. Please acknowledge receipt."
(3.) The petitioner then preferred an appeal. In that it was, inter alia, contended that the documents as were called for by the petitioner at the enquiry stage were not produced. It is to be noted that the petitioner did not indicate if any or all of the said documents had been produced, what difference it would have made. In other words for non-production of any or all of the said documents what prejudice the petitioner has suffered. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal by an order dated June 6, 1984. The text whereof is as follows: "I have gone through the records of the case and have given careful consideration to the grounds of appeal preferred by Shri B.K. Mitra. On an analysis of the entire circumstances, I agree with the reasons and conclusions arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority. The points raised by Shri Mitra were not based on facts and he was trying to take shelter by misinterpreting the circular instructions. He failed to submit the list of documents and witnesses, which he wanted to produce for the purpose of his defence within the date, stipulated by the Inquiring Authority and he also did not raise any objection during the course of the enquiry. His comparison of the irregularities committed at his Branch with other branches are irrelevant and in no way be construed as extenuating circumstances. Each case of such lapses on the part of officials was considered on the facts and circumstances and wherever warranted appropriate disciplinary action was taken. He was given adequate opportunity by the Inquiring Authority to rebut the charges and the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play were not violated. Shri Mitra had financed a very large number of transport operators during the period March to August 1979 without adhering to the norms and practices of the Bank. The departmental enquiry has conclusively proved Shri Mitra's gross negligence in the matter, which is likely to result in substantial loss to the Bank. Taking into account the grave nature of the misconduct on the part of Shri Mitra, I uphold the action of the Appointing Authority in imposing the punishment of dismissal from the bank's service. There is no valid ground for even interfering with the penalty imposed. The official's appeal is accordingly rejected. The order may be communicated to Shri B. K. Mitra by the Chief Vigilance Officer.";