- (1.) The legal issue canvassed by the petitioner, a former employee of the Uco Bank, is that the sanction granted by the chairman and managing director of the bank to prosecute the petitioner is illegal as there was a previous rejection of the sanction and the subsequent sanction has been obtained without any additional material being produced. The principle is beyond question that it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review its decision of refusal to grant sanction or reconsider the matter on the same material. The question that arises is as to whether the principle would be applicable to the case of the petitioner.
(2.) For the purpose of the present proceedings, the petitioner refers to a letter dated April 23, 2008 issued by the chief vigilance officer of the bank to the Central Bureau of Investigation; the note of April 16, 2008 appended to such letter; a memorandum issued by the general manager and deputy general manager of personnel services dated November 12, 2007 with the notings thereon; the sanction order of May 26, 2008 issued by the chairman and managing director; and, an unsigned sanction order dated May 31, 2007.
(3.) According to the petitioner, the memorandum to the board of directors issued by the personnel services department of the bank referred to the transaction in question and concluded that the petitioner "did not play any role in obtaining security for 95 lakhs." The memorandum recorded that there were reports by two successive managers of the Kakurgachi branch of the bank that the initial disbursal in the account of the relevant constituent "was made under the directions of some other Bank functionary and not by (the petitioner)." It also referred to a recovery of Rs.80.76 lakh in the relevant account upon enforcement of securities. The memorandum concluded that "it appears that it is not a case of fraud" but a case of "irregular lending and injudicious use of discretion.";