Janaki Ballabh Gupta vs UCO Bank and Others

Doabia, J.

The petitioner was departmentally proceeded against. Certain acts of omission and commission were attributed. He was served with a charge-sheet. Copy of this is Annexure P/4. Article of Charges read as under :-

(1) Shri Gupta flagrantly abused his position as Manager of the branch of misappropriating subsidy given by the Government upto Rs. 5.75 lakhs approximately and have also tarnished the image of the Bank.

(2) Shri Gupta, by flouting Bank''s rules, norms/procedure laid down for IRDP loans, has failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, intergrity, devotion and diligence.

(3) Shri Gupta''s conduct is unbecoming of an Officer.

(4) By allowing closure/adjustment of loan accounts in the manner as stated in the Statement of allegation, Shri Gupta caused total disregard to objectives of the Government of India''s policy implemented through nationalised banks in respect of upliftment of persons below the poverty line.

An enquiry was held into the matter. The enquiry officer submitted a report against the petitioner. Later, the disciplinary authority after issuing show cause notice decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal. This was dismissed. A review petition was preferred. That was also dismissed. Copies of these orders have been placed on the record as Annexures P/1 to P/3. This has led to the filing of this petition.

Allegation against the petitioner was that during his tenure as manager of Ether branch between January 30, 1982 to December 31, 1984 has sanctioned approximately 3(X) loans under India Rural Development Programme Scheme, under this scheme loans and subsidies were to be given wherever milch buffaloes were to be purchased. The enquiry officer & also the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that in fact no milch buffaloes were purchased. It further came to the conclusion that the loan amounts were directly credited to the respective saving accounts. Thereafter, the subsidy account of the branch was credited and debited to the respective loan accounts of the borrowers thereby reducing the amount of subsidy. A further finding was recorded that after a lapse of 1 to 3 months from the date of disbursement of the first installment of the loan, the second installment was disbursed and on the same date the saving accounts were debited and the loan accounts adjusted, leaving an amount equivalent to subsidy, which was withdrawn by the borrowers on the date when the first installment of loan was disbursed. When the matter was being examined by the appellate authority, the petitioner did submit that there were some irregularities and the amounts were mis-utilised but he pleaded ignorance in as much as he took a plea that he was not aware of it. The relevant portion of the order passed by the appellate authority may be noticed in this regard :

During the personal hearing, Shri Gupta deposed that the borrowers already had the buffaloes. He further deposed that he sent statement to DRDA regularly and they never informed him that the amounts were being mis-utilised. Regarding the charge of causing misutilisation, Shri Gupta deposed that he agrees that the loan amounts were mis-utilised but the loanees only took the money and he had no collaboration with the borrowers to misappropriate the subsidy amount Shri Gupta, afterwards contradicted himself and stated that he does not agree to misutilisation but merely that he could not ascertain proper utilization of the loans, which the borrowers have misutilised. However, I find that facts of the case prove that not only have the borrowers misutilised, but Shri Gupta allowed them to do so in a most negligent and fraudulent manner. Shri Gupta has also submitted written arguments containing points which have already been raised by him in his appeal. He has stated only one additional point, i.e. circulars/rules/notifications issued by the Bank FOR IRDP advances were not produced during the enquiry. Here, I find on going through the enquiry proceedings that Shri Shukla present in Officer did refer to circulars though did not produce the same, and also narrated in detail, the procedure for granting advances under IRDP.

All these matters were considered by the reviewing authority. As noticed above, the reviewing authority found no reason to differ with the appellate authority. The review petition was accordingly dismissed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the bank did not afford reasonable and proper opportunity to the petitioner. Some of the lacunae which have been pointed out are as under :-

(i) that the statement of allegation is vague.

(ii) that the list of loanees was not made available to the petitioner.

(iii) The relevant policy and guidelines under which the loan was to be disbursed was not made known to me petitioner and not made part of the record.

(iv) that the appellate authority as also the reviewing authority did not consider and discuss the evidence.

I am of the view that there is no merit in the various contentions raised by the petitioner.

The petitioner understood the case, he was supposed to meet. Therefore, it cannot be said that the article of charges were not specific.

With regard to non-supply of list of loanees, it be seen that this was supplied to the petitioners on 4th of September 1986. May be, this was after a few days of the commencement of the enquiry. Thus reasonable opportunity was afforded to him. To petitioner has not demonstrated as to how this caused injustice to him. This argument is without any substance.

With regard to recording of the statement of the petitioner earlier to record was the evidence of precaution evidence, the stand of the bank is that it was the petitioner who offered the course, which was adopted. He cannot now turn around and say that this course is not in consonance with the Rules. In any case, again no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner.

The further argument that the evidence has not been discussed is again an argument which is without any basis. The appellate authority has gone into each and every contention raised by the petitioner. The various points raised by the petitioner have been summarised by the appellate authority. This would be apparent from Annexure P/2 (internal page 2). The appellate authority had minutely gone to each and every contention raised by the petitioner. Therefore, no fault can be found with the appellate authority''s order which has been affirmed by the reviewing authority.

It is settled law that this Court is not to sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by the departmental authorities. The earliest view of the Supreme Court on this point would be found in the decision given in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sree Rama Rao, . This view was again reiterated in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Parma Nanda, . As such, this Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence. The finding recorded by the authorities cannot be said to be such a finding which could not be arrived at.

The petitioner has argued that the quantum of punishment is on the higher side. He has placed reliance on Ex. Naik Sardar Singh v. Union of India & others. AIR 1992 S. C. 417. It was observed therein as under-

In Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, :

(AIR 1983 SC 454) this Court held as under (at p. 460 of AIR):

It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." Applying these principles to the instant case, we are also constrained to say that there is an element of arbitrariness in awarding these severe punishments to the appellant.

The petitioner also relies upon Union of India and others Vs. Giriraj Sharma, wherein similar view was expressed.

The petitioner may according prefer a representation before the reviewing authority, who would pass fresh order with regard to quantum of punishment. In case a representation is filed the same be decided within 6 months from the date of receipt. The petition is otherwise without merit and is dismissed.