- (1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of dismissal dated 31.5.1993 passed by the Regional Disciplinary Authority, Amritsar (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 29.9.1993 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Appellate Authority, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal. The petitioner was charged as under :- "Article of Charges : Sh. Rattan Singh Sandhu Officer while working as Branch Incharge of BO Chak Kare Khan, Distt. Amritsar disbursed subsidy in cash to 78 individuals which was received from Punjab Scheduled Castes, Land Development and Finance Corporation, Chandigarh and Rural Development Agency. The subsidy was paid in cash without raising loans in their names and thus without creating the assets. Sh. Rattan Singh Sandhu is, therefore, charged as under:- 1. That Sh. Rattan Singh Sandhu failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank. 2. That Sh. Rattan Singh Sandhu failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honest, devotion and diligence. 3. That Sh. Rattan Singh Sandhu committed acts unbecoming of a Bank Officer. 4. That Sh. Rattan Singh Sandhu failed to act otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties and in exercise of powers conferred on him. The above acts of Sh. Rattan Singh Sandhu constitute acts of misconduct in terms of Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1981 particularly under regulations 3(i), (3) read with regulation 24. The above referred charges are based on statement of allegations mentioned in Annexure- II." The allegations against the petitioner, on the basis of which the charge-sheet had been framed, have been summarized by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report as under :- "Allegations : The main allegation against the CSO in brief are as under :- (a) That he paid subsidy of Rs. 1,36,499/- to 78 beneficiaries in cash without raising any loan in violation of bank lending norms. (b) In only two cases loan applications duly recommended were on record. (ii) In six cases applications are on record, but without any recommendation of sponsoring agency. (iii) In 70 cases, no sponsored application is on record. (c) That CSO has misutilised his official position confidence reposed by bank in him and has misappropriated bank money, tarnished bank's image and has worked against the Govt. policies meant for the weaker section." In the list of allegations, it was observed as follows:- "That above said acts of Sh. Rattan Singh Sandhu are in violation of HQ instructions and Banking norms issued from time to time. It transpires that Sh. Rattan Singh Sandhu misutilised his official capacity and confidence reposed in him by the Bank as Br. Incharge and misappropriated the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,36,499/- in connivance of the individuals (mentioned in Schedule II-A) in the manner stated above. His acts which besides tarnishing the image of the Bank also violated the Govt. Schemes framed for ameliorating the condition of weaker section of the society and upliftment of their economic and social status." The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet. He produced evidence in defence by appearing himself as his own witness. The statement made by the petitioner in his defence was corroborated by DW-2 to DW-5. The petitioner did not deny before the Enquiry Officer the allegation of making payments of subsidy in cash and non-disbursement of loan. This fact was also confirmed by the defence witnesses. The petitioner had contended that he was a victim of circumstances and the then existing law and order situation specifically in the area where the Branch Officer at Chap Kare Khan is situated. On appreciation of the entire evidence, the Enquiry Officer, therefore has held as under :- "It is, therefore, proved that the CSO has violated the Bank's lending norms by releasing the subsidy without raising loans. However, element of pressure due to disturbed condition in the area has also come to light." With regard to the allegation at (c) in the list of allegations, the Enquiry Officer has noted the evidence of MW-1 to MW-4. The evidence of these witnesses reveals that they have not received any complaint against the CSO specifically from Government sponsoring agency recommending non-recommendation of loan cases of their respective departments. The Presenting Officer has also failed to produce any supporting evidence with regard to this allegation. The conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer is as follows :- "The allegation is, therefore, proved to the extent that in 70 cases sponsored loan application are not on record, but non-sponsoring/recommending of cases by sponsoring agency is not proved due to insufficient evidence brought on record."
(2.) With regard to allegation at C, it has been further observed by the Enquiry Officer that this allegation is very closely related to allegation Nos. 1 and 2. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, states that while discussing and appreciating the evidence on allegations 1 and 2, the following facts have surfaced :- "(i) That the CSO has released subsidy amount without raising the loan. (ii) That the beneficiaries were interested in subsidy only and they were not interested in creation of assets. (iii) No complaints against CSO were reported. (iv) That the CSO was working under pressure due to disturbed condition in the area. His successors S. Jodh Singh also remained tense and left the branch subsequently as stated by MW-4. However, the P.O. has not produced any evidence which could substantiate the charge that the C.S.O. misappropriated the amount of subsidy in connivance with the borrowers. The allegation is, therefore, not proved." On the basis of the aforesaid findings on each allegation, the Enquiry Officer has held as follows :- "Articles of charges : In view of my above observations/findings on each allegation : (i) It is proved that the CSO has disbursed subsidy amounting to Rs. 1,36,499/- without raising any loan. (ii) The allegation that in 70 cases no sponsored loan application is on record is proved. However, non-sponsoring the cases could not be held as proved due to insufficient evidence brought on record. (iii) Allegation of misappropriation of subsidy amount in connivance with borrower is not proved. The act of CSO having disbursed subsidy amount without raising loan in violation of Bank norms & condition of Govt. Schemes though do affect tarnish the overall image of the Bank but the element of pressure due to disturbed condition may not be ignored altogether." The Enquiry report together with a complete record was sent to the Disciplinary Authority. After examining the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are result of non-application of mind. By order dated 31.5.1993, the Disciplinary Authority did not fully agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the allegations of the charges as per the charge-sheet are true. The Disciplinary Authority also noted that the petitioner is in habit of flouting instructions of superior for which he was charge-sheeted on 27.4.1989. But taking a lenient view, disciplinary authority censured him vide order dated 27.4.1989. Considering the question of the appropriate punishment, the Disciplinary Authority considered all the aggravating and extenuating circumstances, past record, and arrived at the conclusion that the following punishments shall meet the end of justice :- "CHARGE : That Sh. Rattan Singh Sandhu failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. PUNISHMENT : Dismissed from Bank's service. CHARGE : That Sh. R.S. Sandhu failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. PUNISHMENT : Dismissed from Bank's service. CHARGE : Sh. R.S. Sandhu committed acts unbecoming of bank officer. PUNISHMENT : Dismissed from Bank's service. CHARGE : Sh. Rattan Singh Sandhu failed to act otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties and in exercise of powers conferred on him. PUNISHMENT : Dismissed from Bank's service." The petitioner submitted a statutory appeal against the order dated 31.5.1993 to the Appellate Authority. The appeal has been dismissed, by order dated 29.9.1993, with the following observations :- "On scrutinising the contentions raised by the appellant, enquiry findings of the inquiring authority, order of Disciplinary Authority, and other relevant material on record, it does not absolve him of the allegations levelled against him. Considering the case in totality and after giving due weightage to overall situation, I do not find any justifiable grounds to disagree with the order of the Disciplinary Authority and I am of the view that punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, Regional Manager RD-II, Amritsar is in consonance with the gravity of misconduct. As such I hereby confirm the punishment so awarded. The appeal is as such disposed of. Sd/- Deputy General manager, (Appellate Authority)"
(3.) The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders, on a number of grounds. He submits that the impugned orders suffer from the vice of non-application of mind. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is evident for a number of reasons. He submits that copy of the Enquiry Report was not sent to the petitioner to file an effective representation before the Enquiry Officer differed and reversed the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. He points out that both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have totally ignored that there was no complaint from the public or from the authorities who had sanctioned the subsidy. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority ignored the categoric finding of the Enquiry Officer about the disturbed law and order situation in the area in which the Branch was located. Both the authorities also ignored that absolutely no loss was caused to the Bank. There was no misappropriation of any funds by the petitioner. The favourable record of the petitioner was totally ignored. At the time when the petitioner joined the Branch, it had 30 lacs to its credit, but when the petitioner left the Branch, the assets had increased to Rs. 1.25 crores. Adverse past record was taken into consideration by the authorities, without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner.;