Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner, once a branch manager of the respondent rural bank, complains of the irregular procedure in which the inquiry against him was conducted in course of the impugned disciplinary action, the perfunctory findings of the inquiry report without reference to the evidence on record, the failure of the disciplinary authority to invite the petitioner's response to the findings of the inquiry officer and the complete non-application of mind by the appellate authority to the issues raised against the order of punishment in the departmental appeal.
(2.) It may not be necessary to travel beyond the first charge levelled against the petitioner to assess the challenge and the perceived irregularity of the process. The petitioner sanctioned a loan of Rs.10 lakh to the proprietor of a gift shop in Siliguri for the purpose of stationery and gift item business. In course of a preliminary inquiry conducted by the bank, it was discovered that the unit did not exist. The petitioner was charged with negligence in lending a sizeable amount to a person without carrying out any verification, particularly end-use verification. The other charges were of like nature of amounts adding up to several crores of rupees in all: of the reckless sanction by the petitioner without proper verification or inspection in respect of a slew of transactions.
(3.) As regards the first charge, the inquiry officer found that though the pre-sanction and post-sanction inspection reports had apparently been prepared, on a spot verification it was discovered that the unit did not exist. The inquiry officer recorded that the staff movement register maintained by the bank for the relevant period did not record the visit of the petitioner to the relevant unit either for its inspection prior to the sanctioning of the loan or thereafter. The inquiry officer found that letters addressed and mailed to the borrowers were returned unserved on the grounds of insufficient address or not found. On the basis of such recording of evidence, including the oral evidence on such aspect, the inquiry officer found that the first charge levelled against the petitioner of having granted loan to a fictitious unit had been established.;