- (1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Memo No.13193 dated 27.10.99 passed by the Administrator, Land Development Bank, Patna dismissing the petitioner from his service.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under: - The petitioner was appointed as Supervisor/Field Officer in the Land Development Bank. In the course of his employment he was transferred and posted at different places. From 14.10.85 to 2.9.87 he was posted at Lohardagga and during the said period he disbursed loan to 20 loanees amounting to Rs.2,03,000/ -. The respondents again issued an order No.12939 posting the petitioner at Lohardagga Branch on 29.1.97 for the purpose of realization of the amount of Rs.2,03,000/ - disbursed during the earlier tenure of posting at Lohardagga by the petitioner. Between the period 1.3.97 to 31.3.97 i.e. within a month the petitioner realized Rs.1,00,176/ - against the total disbursed loan amount of Rs.2,03,000/ -. The petitioner was served with a notice vide memo No.2468 dated 23.5.97 and he was asked to filed his show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The main allegation was of dereliction of duty and that the petitioner had realized only 2.2% of target amount of Rs.53,85000/ -. The petitioner filed his show cause on 4.6.97 and accordingly a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 25.6.97 to which the petitioner filed his written statement and pursuant to the enquiry a report was submitted on 12.1.99 by the Enquiry Officer in favour of the petitioner. However, vide letter No.8641 the Deputy Secretary of the Land Development Bank, Patna asked the petitioner to file second show cause and a memo No.13193 dated 27.10.99 was served to the petitioner informing that he has been dismissed from service. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was given a major punishment for a minor charge even though the petitioner had realized 43% of the minimum target of 40% as fixed by the bank, as per its own policy. It has further been submitted that the order of dismissal was without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and even the enquiry report was not considered which was in favour of the petitioner clearly holding that no charge against the petitioner was established.
(3.) THE respondents, in their counter affidavit, have submitted that the petitioner was responsible for collection of loan amount given by the bank and it was not correct to say that the petitioner was only responsible for loan disbursement. It has further been contended that the Public Demand Recovery Act, gives ample power to recover the loan amount and take appropriate measures for collection to which the petitioner failed to do and the administrative action was taken only on the fact that the loan collection was very poor as per his past record.;