KARUNAKETAN GANGULY Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK
LAWS(CAL)-1996-3-4
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 01,1996

KARUNAKETAN GANGULY Appellant
VERSUS
ALLAHABAD BANK Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA V. S.K.CHATTERJEE [REFERRED TO]
BIMAL KANTA CHATTERJEE V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
UNITED BANK OF INDIA V. HIRAK MUKHEREJEE AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
NRIPENDRANATH V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL BHATTACHARJEE V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
EXPORT INSPECTION COUNSEL OF INDIA V. K.K.MITRA [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMA KISHORE V. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH ALIAS DEB KUMAR PATHAK V. SHYAMAL KUMAR PATHAK AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR MUKHERJEE V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR LAL GUPTA VS. AMAR NATH CHAWLA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. J AHMED [REFERRED TO]
S P GUPTA V M TARKUNDE J L KALRA IQBAL M CHAGLA MISS LILY THOMAS A RAJAPPA UNION OF INDIA D N PANDEY R PRASAD SINHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
A L KALRA VS. PROJECT AND EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KASHINATH DIKSHJTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPTT MADRAS VS. MUNUSWAMY MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BANI SINGH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Rabin Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.)The petitioner, Karunaketan, has hit upon the writ application for issuance of Mandamus and for other collateral reliefs which fielded amongst others the quashing of charge-sheet dated July 5, 1984, annexure-A. Thus, I begin :-
(2.)The petitioner while acting as Branch Manager, Dunlop Bridge, Allahabad Bank made advances, loans, overdrafts etc., with the approval of the authority between February 28, 1983 and May 21, 1984. Ultimately it turned to be a sore in his official career. Administrative functions of the said branch bore the dent as it was starving for the staff about which the respondents are in an inhospitable look. He did not receive feedback from the head office. The respondents charged him with misconduct for unwise and unauthorised acts of his contrary to Banking Rules, norms and procedures, namely Rules 3(1), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regn., 1976. The misconduct had left him writhing in agony.
(3.)Needless to repeat the unbecoming conduct of the petitioner, according to the charge-sheet tosses its head by the reason of flouting the banking principles and procedures of lending in regard to making of a pre-credit appraisal, ensuring post credit verification and follow-up action, the object being to safeguard the interest of the bank. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings was visited with illegalities as it offended fair hearing, natural justice and reasonableness. The above does not provide any avenue for the respondents to explore relief and the disciplinary proceedings, accordingly, is exploded.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.