Samapti Chatterjee, J. - (1.) The following issues are to be determined in this case :- (i) Whether the petitioner being the departmental head of Centralized Processing Centre was under obligation to look into all aspects for recommending the loan to the Network Credit Committee? (ii) Whether the final order dated 16th April , 2015 passed by the Chief General Manager and appointing authority which was subsequently affirmed by the order dated 3rd September 2015 passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal , arbitrary , therefore , liable to be quashed and set aside ? FACT OF THE CASE
(2.) The petitioner case in nutshell is as follows :- The Petitioner was initially appointed as probationary officer in State Bank of India at Dhubri, Assam on 3rd November 1980, as a Class-1 Officer. During his service career, the petitioner received several promotions. Ultimately, he became Assistant General Manager of the State Bank of India. Thereafter, on 31st August, 2015 petitioner retired as Assistant General Manager (Training), State Bank Learning Centre at Siliguri. Petitioner was also holding the post of Assistant General Manager Centralized Processing Centre (hereinafter referred to as CPC) of State Bank of India, Calcutta, from July, 2009 to May, 2010. Petitioner was recommending to the Network Credit Committee for loan to several Companies and individuals though he was not supposed to do so and he was also entrusted to do the assessment work necessary to be done in terms of Circular No.CirCoAdv/258/2003-04 dated 29.1.2004. It is also stated that petitioner was not in-charge of sanctioning the loan to various companies and the individual. He was only the recommending authority along with other Officers for any loan proposal to higher authority i.e. Network Committee for sanction or rejection of the loan. It was also the case of the petitioner that according to the said Circular dated 29th January, 2004 the assessment work is supposed to be done by the Team Leader to be appointed by the Bank but there was no Team Leader at CPC at the material point of time; as a result petitioner had no option but to assess all loan proposals. The Circular dated 29th January, 2004 provides as follows :- "Monitoring : Team Leader Team Leader to associate with appraisal and interact with credit analyst from the very beginning. iv) Assessment to be completed by Team Leader -within two days of receipt of papers from the credit analyst. v) Recommendations to be submitted - within a day after assessment. Monitoring : Assistant General Manager (CPC) Time frame at CPC: 10 days from the receipt of papers from Branch". It is stated that all of a sudden on 23rd April, 2014, the petitioner received a letter from the Disciplinary Authority and General Manager (Network-I) directing the petitioner to give his written explanation to the allegations made against him. Accordingly, on 21st May, 2014 petitioner gave written reply thereby denying all the allegations as leveled against him in the letter dated 23rd April, 2014. It is also stated that except Charge No. 2 all other Charges were not proved and the petitioner was exonerated from all those other Charges. In Charge No. 2 it is alleged that "Sri Das failed to notice that the Search and Valuation Report in respect of M/s P.P.M. Creations (P) Ltd were addressed to S.M.E. J.L. Nehru Road Branch even though the proposal was not source through them, and did not check from the SME, J.L. Nehru Road branch the reasons therefor". Accordingly, a departmental enquiry was commenced without giving the petitioner any further opportunity to deny the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet; be that as it may one Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Deputy General Manager (ABU), Local Head Office, Kolkata was appointed as an Inquiring Authority under Rule 68(2)(ii) to hold the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Such enquiry was held for three days and the petitioner produced three defence witnesses also to disprove the charges leveled against the petitioner. Ultimately, on 24th February, 2015 the enquiry report was prepared for communication. It is evident from the enquiry report that charge no. 2 was held partly established concluding that " it is established by CSO's written submission that description of search reports and valuation reports (PEX-15, PEX-21) addressed to SME J.L. Nehru Road Branch was incorporated in the body of the proposal though these discrepancies were detected by him. The rectified reports (DEX-87, DEX-88) were not placed in the record along with discrepant ones". By the letter dated 7th March, 2015, petitioner was directed to submit his written submission against the Inquiry Report dated 24th February, 2015, within seven days of receipt of the letter. Accordingly, petitioner on 12th March, 2015 submitted his submissions thereby denying the Charge No.2, as partly proved, interalia, as follows:- (i)The time limit set for Assessment (done by AGM) by the bank is only 2 days (PEX-47, Section-I). As I was also required to spend a major part of these 2 days in interacting with my superior officers including meetings of various tiers, I could have only managed time to look at some of the most pertinent details and make necessary corrections wherever warranted. I had to depend and it can be therefore deduced that the AGM has to depend on (a) officials of the Branches who are entrusted with KYC responsibilities, (b) the bank's empanelled lawyer who carried out the search, (c) bank's empanelled valuer (s) and (d) person conducting the appraisal. (ii)All the same, I was at that time able to detect the said error in the valuation report. I immediately checked up with J L Nehru Road branch and satisfied myself that no related proposal was pending or was rejected there. However, not foreseeing that this simple case of clerical/typographical error may someday translate itself into a case for charge-sheet, I did not take the precaution of keeping a paper trail of this activity. I reiterate that this error of nine did not result in any inconvenience/loss for anyone. (iii)Having noticed this error in the valuation report, I even took up with the valuer and got a rectified report (DEX-85) that is now kept on record. However, I/my office forgot to effect the required changes in the body of the proposal (PEX-11). The only difference would have been a few days' difference in the date of report. In any case, I ensured that the Bank's interest was in no way affected. (iv)Even in case of the TIR, the error was discovered and a revised report, with no change except for the name of the branch, was obtained (DEX-87). However, I/my office may have missed out on destroying the older/incorrect copy. I reiterate that this small error of clerical nature did not in any way impact the decision making process and was in no way responsible for any negative consequence. (v)I also refer to the comments of Shri Shyamal Kanti Das, retired DGM (Credit) and Chairman of NWCC (DW-1), "CPC...... .had to maintain a certain TAT for which some minor deficiencies were often taken care of even after sanction by NWCC". Thereafter, on the basis of the report dated 24th February, 2015, the Chief General Manager and Appointing Authority, State Bank of India wrote a letter dated 4th April, 2015 to the petitioner informing that upon consideration of report of enquiry the Chief General Manager and Appointing Authority proposed to inflict major penalty of "reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by three stages till retirement with cumulative effect in terms of Rule 67(f) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules" and as such the petitioner was given liberty to appear before him on 9th April, 2015 for a personal hearing before imposing the proposed penalty. Accordingly, on 9th April, 2015, the petitioner not only personally appeared before the Appointing Authority but also submitted a written statement denying charge no.2 and prayed for exoneration of the charge and not to impose the proposed punishment. However, on 16th April, 2015, the Chief General Manager and Appointing Authority issued a final order and/or penalty order of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by three stages till retirement with cumulative effect in terms of Rule 67(f) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. Against that the petitioner preferred an appeal on 18th May, 2015 before the Appellate Committee. In the appeal of the petitioner the Appellate Committee consisting of three Chief General Managers passed an appellate order dated 3rd September, 2015, and communicated the same by a forwarding letter dated 16th November, 2015 thereby informing that the Committee is inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and feels that ends of justice would be adequately met by modifying punishment to reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by two stages till retirement with cumulative effect" in terms of Rule 67(f) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED ADVOCATES
(3.) Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner strongly argued that the order of the appellate authority is perverse, misconceived and very much contrary to record of the case.;