- (1.) Herd learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.8.2000 passed by the Chairman, Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Disciplinary Authority, Annexure 6, by which the consolidated punishment of reduction of four stages in the incremental scale of pay has been imposed upon him in respect of a departmental proceeding initiated by charge sheet dated 6.6.1994. The appellate authority, by its order dated 23.4.2001, Annexure 7, has confirmed the said order and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
(2.) In February 1983 to October 1987, while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the Chainpur Branch under the respondent bank, he was served with a charge sheet dated 6th June, 1994, Annexure-1, for the following charges:- (i) he misappropriated Rs. 85,500/- being the Government subsidy procured by the bank for being credited to 164 loan accounts financed under the Integrated Rural Development Programme (ii) he misutilized Bank's money under his control by showing fake loans disbursement and acted mala fide. (iii) he misappropriated Rs. 1543.20 Paise in course of disbursement of loans to five loanees under the Integrated Rural Development Programme. The accompanying statements in support of the Article of charges were also annexed to the charge sheet which, inter alia, alleged that under the bank scheme of financing from the IRDP project categorical instructions for loan disbursement were issued. The petitioner prepared a fake report showing supply of additional assets to the then existing loanees and then debited their loan accounts on occasions stated in enclosure attached and kept the money so debited with himself. Within another few days, the petitioner recovered back in those loan accounts such amounts which added with subsidy make the above noted debits zero. The summation of recovery shown and the subsidy credited in each loan accounts was equal to the debit made through his bogus transaction in 164 loan accounts. He misappropriated Rs. 85,500/- being the subsidy equivalent credited to many loan accounts on the enumerated occasions. Thereby he committed serious misconduct in terms of Regulations 17 and 19 of the Staff Service Regulation of the Bank, 1981 and failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity. The specific instances of loans were also enumerated therein. These loans disbursement were to be made in no manner other than to supply of productive assets to such loanees, which he violated in a mala fide manner. Further in respect of the third charge, while making debit in the loan accounts out of the transactions enumerated in the statement of allegations as aforesaid, he dishonestly retained with him Rs. 1543.20 Paise, which was also shown in Enclosure No. 2 attached therewith. Therefore, the petitioner was proceeded against for the alleged charges. Details of such accounts and disbursement of loans were also part of the enclosure forming the charge sheet. The petitioner, thereafter, faced the inquiry proceeding in which initially one Ravindra Nath was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, one Shri Bhattacharya was appointed as Inquiry Officer in place of the earlier Inquiry Officer. The petitioner made allegations that the charges have been leveled without proper verification of the accounts and the material exhibits has not been adduced to prove the charges. He further stated that the charges nos. 2 and 3 were concocted as whatever loan was granted to the persons have been duly received by them and purchase receipts were signed by the Mukhia and Block Development Officer including the petitioner. However, the said documents were not relied upon in an arbitrary manner. He further submitted that every bill of purchase in respect of first and second article of charges was having genuine signature of every purchase committee members including B.D.O. being a Block Agriculture Officer of loanees themselves and the allegations made against him are, therefore, baseless. The loans were disbursed in a proper manner before the Purchase Committee and no public complaint was ever made to any of the related loanees, which was specified in the mode of disbursal. However, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of the alleged charges and inquiry report was submitted on 12.3.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to show cause which he did, vide Annexure 5 dated 20.4.1998.
(3.) In detailed reply once again the petitioner explained his innocence and discussed individual charges in detail also pointing out certain facts, which were ignored by the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry proceeding. However, by the impugned order consolidated punishment of reduction of four stages incremental scale of pay has been imposed by the disciplinary authority vide the impugned order dated 24.8.2000, Annexure 6, which is not proper. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order of punishment has been rendered without proper application of mind and without taking into account the elaborate statements of defence submitted by him in reply to the second show cause notice. The Appellate Authority has also confirmed the original order of punishment without application of mind. The petitioner is not guilty of the aforesaid charges in any case, which could not be proved against him in the circumstances explained hereinabove.;