- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE deceased - petitioner Bal Krishna Munda has died during the pendency of the writ application who is substituted by his wife Reman Devi. The deceased - petitioner had preferred this application being aggrieved by the appellate order dated 17.7.2001 issued by the Chairman, Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank vide Annexure -15 on behalf of the Board of Directors cum Appellate Authority confirming the penalty imposed by the Chairman cum Disciplinary Authority upon the petitioner of removal from service. The petitioner has also challenged the original order imposing penalty by the Chairman of the said Bank dated 17.2.2000, which is contained at Annexure -13 to the writ application. The petitioner was working as Manager at the Hatinghore Branch of Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank from 19.9.1994 to 4.1.1999. He was proceeded against departmentally on the basis of charge -sheet dated 18.3.1999 alleging serious misconduct for having disbursed loan on several occasions to the tune of Rs. 1,72,700/ - and Rs. 91,100/ - respectively to Sri Ram Lakhan Sahu, Officer and Sri Binayak Damodar Singh, Clerk cum Cashier of the branch as detailed in Annexure A & B to the said charge - sheet. He had indulged in disbursal of several loans without obtaining National Savings Certificate(N.S.C.) / L.I.C./ T.D.R.s and keeping on record adequate securities as also not reported such disbursement to the competent authority. These charges amounted to serious misconduct within the meaning of Regulation No. 17 & 19 read with Regulation No. 30(i) of Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulation 1981. The petitioner is stated to have participated in the inquiry and confessed his guilt. The inquiry was proceeded after appointment of Presenting and Enquiry Officer and after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner, which is not in dispute, the impugned order of punishment was passed by the Chairman which is contained at Annexure -13 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges found to have been proved during the inquiry also on the basis of unambiguous categorical statement made by him. The defence of the petitioner is that he had obtained the N.S.C./ L.I.C policies as securities, which were verified by the Chairman and found to be incorrect as the concerned employee had also failed to furnish any evidence to that effect. In the impugned order it is also recorded that the petitioner exceeded his delegated authority in allowing withdrawals of the Bank's money on numerous occasions to staff members without adequate/requisite securities as per Bank's norms and proved himself to be a security risk and unfit for the Bank's service. It was also held that the acts of the petitioner has resulted in loss to bank as petitioner had failed to perform his statutory duty with utmost honesty and integrity and has also acted negligently, thus has lost the confidence of the employer. In such circumstances, the major punishment of removal from service was passed and it was also directed that the amount in question be recovered from the employee concerned.
(3.) THE petitioner preferred appeal vide Annexure -14 before the Board of Directors of the Respondent - Bank and the appellate order has been communicated to the petitioner by the Chairman of the respondent - Bank on behalf of the Board of Directors cum Appellate Authority. The grounds for assailing the impugned order on behalf of the petitioner are (a) that he innocently advanced the loan being guided by the fact that the Lonee were employees of the bank itself and no stranger ; (b) that the Bank has already recovered the amount from the concerned employees and no loss has resulted to the bank ; (c) that the appellate order has been passed by the same person i.e. the Chairman of the Bank and not by the Board of Directors of the Bank, who is the Appellate Authority in such case. As such, there is violation of Principle of Natural Justice, so far as the maxim Nemo in propria causa judex,esse debet is concerned, which means that no man can be a judge in his own cause. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the impugned order is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct found to be proved against the petitioner and leniency of the punishment is required to be passed. He also submitted that petitioner was posted for 20 years in the service and there is no charges of any misconduct against him.;