SANTOSH KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY-CUM-D.G.M., CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner while working as Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, at Gairkata, faced a Departmental Proceeding and was punished by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority enhanced the punishment and accordingly in this writ application the petitioner not only challenges the memorandum of charge but also the enquiry report in Annexure -6, the findings and punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in Annexure -9 and the order of the appellate authority in Annexure -11.

(2.) THE petitioner in the Departmental Proceeding faced seven charges such as sanctioning advances to parties beyond his delegated authority by ignoring the group concept, allowing huge excesses without any delegated authority in the account of M/s. U.P. Filling Station and also suppressing the information in having allowed excesses for which he had no delegated authority, sanctioning a housing loan of Rs.2.50 lacs to one Dilip Kumar Panda in gross violation of loan policy, sanctioning the credit facilities to one Harihara Patra, a defaulter and adjusting the PMRY loan of the borrower by sanctioning cash credit limit for a higher amount and allowing house loan to the said party in spite of the fact that the land was not in the name of the borrower and the owner of the land also was not a co -borrower, sanctioning a term loan of Rs.9.50 lacs to Mrs. Pitambari Rath, aged about 81 years for running an industrial unit knowing fully well that at the age of 81 year, the lady would not be in a position to run any industrial activity, fraudulently allowing demand loan of Rs.17.00 lacs to one P.K. Behera against the norms and also for sanctioning Rs.10.70 lacs to one Mrs. P.S. Samant against a DIC sponsored proposal for Rs.7.20 lacs and permitting the borrower to divert Rs.1.00 lac out of the loan proceeds for payment to one P.K. Behera another borrower. In course of enquiry, evidence was adduced before the Enquiry Officer and in Annexure -6, the report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted. The Enquiry Officer in his report found the petitioner guilty of Charge No.1 in part and Charge No.2 in full. However, he exonerated the petitioner the rest of the six charges. The disciplinary authority though agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge Nos.1 and 2, did not agree with the finding so far as it relates to Charge No.5. The disciplinary authority held that Charge No.5 has been partially proved. The disciplinary authority also imposed separate punishments for each of the charges. In respect of Charge No.1 which was partially proved, the punishment was reduction to two lower stages in the Time Scale of Pay for a period of three years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of three years period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. So far as Charge No.2 is concerned, the punishment of censure was imposed. So far as Charge No.5 is concerned, the disciplinary authority differed with the Enquiry Officer and held the petitioner is partly guilty of the charge and imposed the punishment, which is same as the punishment in respect of Charge No.1.

(3.) SHRI S.K. Sarangi, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party -Bank submitted that though the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer so far as Charge No.5 is concerned, the punishment imposed in respect of Charge No.1 and Charge No.5 being the same, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner for not being served with a notice to show cause. With reference to the record, Shri Sarangi, the learned counsel appearing for the Bank fairly submitted before differing with the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority had not given a notice to show cause to the petitioner and it was also fairly submitted by the learned counsel that the appellate authority while differing with the Enquiry Officer's finding as well as the order of the disciplinary authority, did not give any notice to the petitioner to show cause.