M.S. Nagaraja vs The Executive Director, Canara Bank and Others

P.B. Bajanthri, J.—There is a delay of 89 days in filing the above appeal. For the reasons stated in the affidavit, the delay of 89 days is condoned.

The appellant who was Manager, Canara Bank, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for certain misdeeds which ended in imposing penalty. Aggrieved by the same, he had preferred an appeal. In the appeal, the order of penalty was confirmed. Thus, the appellant aggrieved by the order of penalty filed writ petition No. 34853/11 before this Court which came to be dismissed on 2.11.2012. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the appellant has filed the above appeal.

The appellant while working as a Manager at Iragampalli Branch, Kolar District, during the period from 30.5.2005 to 2.8.2008 the officials of the respondents namely inspecting officers noticed that there were several serious irregularities in sanctioning and monitoring of loans. The lapses included sanctioning of loans to grow irrigated crops where the lands are actually dry, loans were granted beyond the command area of the branch without obtaining prior permission of the concerned Regional Officer as per the stipulated guidelines, improper assessment of scale of finance leading to excess finance in few cases, non-stipulation of required margin, non-conducting of pre and post sanction inspection. In respect of few Horticulture loans, it was noticed that the borrowers had not undertaken the activities like plantation, construction of labour quarters. It was also noticed that the appellant had entertained outsiders for preparation of loan documents who have collected charges for such work which was unethical. In totality the allegations are that for the purpose of sanctioning and monitoring of loans to the customers the appellant had ignored the policy and guidelines of the bank. Arising out of the aforementioned lapses of the appellant in sanctioning and monitoring of loans the appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by framing article of charges on 12.1.2010. The appellant denied the charges leveled against him and submitted his explanation on 5.2.2010. The disciplinary authority dissatisfied with the explanation of the appellant proceeded with the enquiry. The Inquiring Authority submitted report and held that Issue Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 11 are proved and found guilty. Insofar as Issue Nos. 6 and 12 are concerned it was held to be partly proved and partly found guilty.

The disciplinary authority after receipt of the findings report of the Inquiring authority issued a show-cause notice along with the findings report of the Inquiring authority to the appellant. The disciplinary authority on examination of the findings report of the Inquiring authority agreed with the report and imposed penalty of reduction to a lower grade i.e. from MMG Scale II to JMG Scale I with basic pay fixed at Rs. 15,100/- on the appellant on 25.11.2010. The appellant aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 25.11.2010 filed a memorandum of appeal before the appellate authority on 21.3.2011. The appellate authority on considering the appeal of the appellant on 4.6.2011 and passed the order that there is no merit in the appeal and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

The appellant aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority dated 25.11.2010 and 4.6.2011 respectively preferred writ petition before this Court which was numbered as W.P. No. 34853/2011. On 2.11.2012 the said writ petition was dismissed while considering the contentions of the appellant. In the writ petition it was contended by the appellant that article of charges are vague, no specific instances of any misconduct are alleged. Even if there was any procedural irregularities in sanctioning and monitoring loans it had not resulted in any financial loss to the respondent bank. It was also contended that charges were not proved since each individual transactions have not been examined in the disciplinary proceeding and the appellate authority has not considered the contentions of the appellant. Respondent-Bank resisted the contentions of the appellant before the learned single Judge contending that the appellant had committed serious misconduct while sanctioning and monitoring loans which was evident from the inspection report and the appellant had so casually sanctioned the loan. To the extent it was contended that the appellant had sanctioned loan to a dead person. That apart, the respondent-Bank contended that the appellant exceeded his limit insofar as advancing loan more than the ceiling limit permitted to him, which was a serious lapse on the part of the appellant. The learned single Judge after considering the contentions of both the parties dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

The appellant has reiterated the arguments which were advanced before the learned single Judge and further contended that the learned single Judge did not appreciate the contentions of the appellant. It was contended that each individual advance loan records has not been taken into consideration in the enquiry to prove that there are lapses on the part of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge did not effectively consider the grounds urged before the appellate authority, since the appellate authority mechanically confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. According to the appellant he had been imposed with a major penalty and requested to rehear his appeal. To that extent he sought for remanding the matter to the appellate authority before the learned single Judge. The appellant also relied on the appreciation/commendatory certificates issued by the respondents with reference to the work of the appellant.

The respondent''s counsel submitted that the learned single Judge has not committed any error. Each and every contentions of the appellant had been taken note of so also of the respondent-Bank and held that two authorities have concurrently held against the appellant.

The appellant''s contention that charges are not specific and detail is not true for the reasons that the statement of imputation to articles of charge is crystal clear as to which are the cases in which there were lapses on the part of the appellant in sanctioning and monitoring loans. Infact, facts and figures have been culled out in the statement of imputation. The list of documents and list of witnesses which were examined in the enquiry indicates that there are no discrepancies in issuing articles of charge as well as holding of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that charges are vague are not at all tenable. Insofar as consideration of appeal by the appellate authority is concerned, it is evident from the order of the appellate authority that the contentions of the appellant has been taken into consideration and appellate authority has held that there are no merits in the appellant''s appeal. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the appellate authority has mechanically affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority is incorrect. The contention of the appellant is that the quantum of penalty is on higher side and the same has not been considered by the learned single Judge. The charges relating to money transactions in a bank-financial institution are in serious in nature since the customers would lose faith if the financial institutions like bank do not function properly. In fact, the disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view in imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower grade from MMG scale to that of JMG Scale-I with basic pay fixed at Rs. 15,100/-. The contention of the appellant that his work has been appreciated and he has been certified with commendatory certificates by the respondent-Bank has nothing to do with the present matter for the reasons that the respondent-Bank has to appreciate its employee/Officer whenever their performance are good. At the same time, the bank-respondent cannot ignore the misconduct or misdeeds committed by its employees/officers merely because they have been awarded with appreciation certificate prior to misconduct/misdeeds. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the appellant has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and so also the order of the learned single Judge.

In view of our preceding analysis, we do not find any substance in the writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.