SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) The appellant -State Bank of India is aggrieved of order passed in W.P.(S) No.3255 of 2003 filed by the respondent -employee namely, Anil Kumar Mishra, whereby the penalty of removal from service has been held bad, illegal and unsustainable on account of consultation with the Central Vigilance Officer.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case speaks that the respondent no.1 -writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as respondent) served at Patan Branch of the appellant -Bank from 16.06.1998 to 10.11.1998 and during this period he committed several acts of misconduct for which a charge -memo dated 17.06.2000 containing the following charges was served upon him: (i) The delinquent employee collected Rs.78,411/ - from 14 borrowers for credit to their loan accounts under IRDP and misappropriated the entire amount. (ii) He sanctioned IRDP loans to wives of 14 borrowers and got their discharge on the Banker's Cheque for payment of loan however, he kept the amount of Rs.2,45,000/ - with himself on the pretext of adjusting the loan accounts of their husbands. (iii) He sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs.13.40 lacs in September, 1998 and Rs.4.52 lacs in October, 1998 and thereby exceeded the budgeted level by Rs.6.39 lacs and Rs.9.79 lacs for the respective months and violated the instructions of the controller for not exceeding the budget under advance and the instruction not to exercise discretionary power in sanction of loans till further instructions. (iv) The Charged Officer recovered less margin in respect of PMRY Loan Account Nos.15 and 16. (v) He sanctioned and disbursed Rs.50,000/ - each to 5 borrowers under IRDP Group Finance for Tractor loan, exceeding his discretionary power for sanction of loan without mortgage of land and did not obtain post -facto sanction from the controlling office. (vi) He committed irregularities in sanction/ disbursement of cash credit accounts of M/s Jai Hanuman Bhandar, M/s Angad Vastralaya and M/s Shri Manoj Kumar. (vii) Without ascertaining the purpose of the loan, he sanctioned 58 IRDP loans with limit Rs.17,500/ - without pre -sanction.
(3.) An enquiry followed the charge -memo, which concluded with submission of the enquiry report dated 12.09.2001. The Enquiring Authority found the charges at Sl. Nos. (i), (iv) and (vi) proved whereas, charges at Sl. Nos. (v) and (vii) were held partly proved. The charges as framed at Sl. Nos. (ii) and (iii) were held "not proved". The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority on the Articles of charge which were found not proved or partly proved and held that the respondent failed to serve the Bank with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. A copy of the enquiry report with the disagreement note dated 01.10.2001 of the Disciplinary Authority were served upon the respondent. The respondent submitted his reply, denying the charges levelled against him and prayed for exoneration from the charges. What happens thereafter, would lead to the crux of the matter.;