AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi V. Malimath, J—The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as an Assistant Manager with the respondent-bank at Basavakalyan from 23/08/2004 to 03/12/2004, a charge sheet was issued to him. The sum and substance of the same was that when he was working as Branch Manager at Talikote from 01/09/2003 to 02/08/2004, he has abused his official position and had extended credit facilities to certain parties in violation of bank lending norms without proper pre-sanction appraisal of the credit proposal and without ensuring end-use of the funds. That there was no proper follow up action and thereby unduly accommodated the parties concerned, exposing the bank to huge financial risks and that in the above process, he had accepted illegal gratification while sanctioning the loans. The allegations made against him were denied. An inquiry was initiated. He participated in the same. The inquiring officer held the charges proved. The petitioner was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal which was also rejected. Hence, the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Inquiring officer had committed an error in holding that the charges against him have been proved. That there is no material or evidence to substantiate such charges. That the charges against him and another employee were identical in nature and on an appeal filed by the other employee, the same has been entertained by the bank and he has been reinstated. Therefore, he pleads that since the charges were one and the same, both of them should receive an identical punishment. Since the co-worker has been reinstated into service, he too requires to be reinstated. Therefore, he pleads that since the charges were one and the same and that the co-worker has been reinstated into service, he too requires to be reinstated.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. He contends that there is no error committed by the inquiring officer calling for interference. That substantial material and evidence have been led in, in order to prove the charges against the petitioner. Adequate opportunity was also granted to him. He has failed to defend the charges levelled against him. Therefore, he has been rightly dismissed from service and question of parity between him and the other employee does not arise for consideration. That both cannot be treated on par. The case of each one of the officers have been considered independently. Since one officer has been exonerated does not mean that the other officer should also receive the same order. Hence, he pleads that the petition be dismissed.
Heard learned counsels.
Various charges were levelled against the workman as follows:
"1. That SOD 1063 (Sanction Over Draft) of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the name of Iragantappa Madivalar with Sharanappa Bagewadi as guarantor against security of hypothecation of stock of oil products and VCC for Rs. 1,00,000/- and UREM of property valued at Rs. 2.18 lakh; SOD 1059 for Rs. 2,00,000/- in the name of Sri. Suresh Madivalar on collateral security of Rs. 50,000/-;
OSL 112/04 for Rs. 1.50 lakh in the name of Smt. Madivalamma Nagappa Madivalar-mother of Iragantappa Madivalar against stock in trade. That the unit was not in existence.
OSL 118/04 in the name of Smt. Boramma Mudukappa Madivalar-sister of Iragantappa Madivalar for Rs. 1,50,000/- against stock in trade.
OSL 119/04 in the name of Smt. Shashikala Gurupadaiah Talasdar for Rs. 1,50,000/-, a relative of Iragantappa Madivalar against stock in trade of Kirana shop where Iragantappa Madivalar was taken as guarantor.
SOD 1061 in the name of Smt. Neelamma S. Borawath for Rs. 2,00,000/-, a relative of Iragantappa Madivalar against stock in trade.
All these accounts were inter-relatable to Iragantappa Madivalar. Therefore in effect, they were all sanction of loans to one and the same person.
OSL 54/04 for Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Sri. Abdulsab Mohammed Gous Haveli against stock in trade and the nature of business is not mentioned.
OSL 56/04 in the name of Sri. Sadashiva Rangappa Gotakhandaki for Rs. 40,000/- against stock in trade of Kirana items whereas the address furnished in the loan application is totally different.
OSL 98/04 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Shabber Ahammed Abdul Rajak Awai against stock in trade of general stores. As per the SB opening form, he was doing cloth business. The party could not be identified and his shop could not be traced out.
OSL 104/04 for Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Jabbar Chandsab Balegar against stock in trade of bangles. Neither the party nor his shop is traceable.
OSL 114/04 for Rs. 80,000/- in the name of Mohammed Hussein Sab Balaganur against stock in trade of fruits. Neither the party nor his shop is traceable.
OSL 110/04 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Malakajappa Tippannappa Sajjan against stock in trade of oil which was valued at Rs. 1,00,000/- only.
OSL 101/04 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Nagappa Sajjan against stock in trade of oil wherein the very same stock in trade was shown as guarantor for the loan sanctioned to Malakajappa T. Sajjan, his brother.
OSL 16/04 for Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Kasim Mohammed Sab Abale against stock in trade. However, the said person was not doing any business but was a commercial moneylender.
OSL 53/04 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Raghavendra Subba singh Hajeri against stock in trade of kirana goods whereas the material indicate that he was running a wine shop and Rs. 1,49,500/- was withdrawn in cash and deposited in another account.
OSL55/04 for Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Basavaraj S. Agni against stock in trade of kirana goods whereas the party has not started any kirana shop at all.
OSL 96/04 for Rs. 70,000/- in the name of Ashok Nagappa Nalatwad for the purpose of Bhusari business. However, the party is running a printing press and has mis-utilised the loan proceeds.
OSL 99/04 for Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Shakilabanu H. Kembhavi against stock of cloth business. The party does not have any stock of cloth.
OSL 106/04 for Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Shanthappa Kundalappa Biradar for doing hotel business. He does not own a hotel business but a tea shop.
OSL 121/04 for Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Vidya Vijayakumar Gangashetti for kirana business. The party is a house wife and does not have any kirana shop.
OSL128/04 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of vijayalaxmi Sayabanna Kamble for doing kirana business. The party is a house wife and does not have any kirana shop.
OSL 132/04 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Kasturibai Parasappa Gubbewad for doing kirana business. The party is a house wife and does not have any kirana shop.
OSL 137/2004 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Sri Kesarsingh Ramsingh Hajeri for doing stone slab business. The loan amount was not used for the same but for some other business.
OSL No. 156/2004 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Sri D.B. Hadimani for doing kirana business. Party has not established any kirana business. He informed that the Branch Manager has collected Rs. 5,000/-from him as illegal gratification.
OSL 162/2004 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Sri Darasingh Kishansingh Nargund for doing kirana business. The party is running a STD booth and does not have any kirana shop.
OSL 164/2004 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Sri Hanumantha Rao Baburao Deshpande for obtaining dealership of PVC pipes. The party is not holding any stock of PVC pipes.
OSL 133/2004 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Sri Shivanand Somappa Budhihal for working capital to establish kirana shop. The amount sanctioned was used for the expenses of his daughter''s marriage.
OSL 153/2004 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Smt. Zakira Begum Kalavant for working capital to establish a kirana shop. Party has not started the kirana shop. The amount was utilised by her husband for doing some other business.
OSL No. 151/2004 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Sri Prakash Sharanappa Sajjan for doing oil business. The party is doing stone business and not oil business.
OSL 157/2004 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Sri Basavaraj Basappa Kattimani for doing kirana shop. He has not started the kirana shop. He has stated that he had paid Rs. 10,000/- to the Manager as illegal gratification for getting the loan sanctioned.
That 16 cases were reported therein where loans were sanctioned to the other persons before going on unauthorised absence.
That the parties have informed that he has taken Rs. 10,000/- from each of the applicant for sanctioning loan for them.
That 13 loan applications were received but loans were not sanctioned before going on unauthorised absence.
SOD 1058 for Rs. 1 lakh in the name of Sri Syed Rajesab Anesur against stock in trade of fruits and collateral security of VCC for Rs. 25,000/-. The party has stock of fruits worth Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- which was not sufficient to cover the bank liability.
OSL 103/2004 for Rs. 1 lakh in the name of Sri Ameensab Adamsab Nidagundi for establishing Ice factory and improving Hotel business. The total worth of hotel equipments was hardly Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-.
OSL 145/2004 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Smt. Lalitha Ramesh Myageri for putting up a kirana shop. The party is holding stocks of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- against the sanction loan of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
That, he was actively canvassing UC business for his son who was an agent at Badami and he was also insisting borrowers to take LIC policies while sanctioning loans."
On these charges, an enquiry was held. The Bank examined two witnesses on its behalf and marked 280 documents. The petitioner also participated in the same. No evidence was let in by the workman. The Enquiry Officer having considered the evidence was of the view that all the allegations against him have been proved; that the workman has failed to defend the charges against him. He had put in almost 28 years of service and therefore he was familiar with the Rules and Guidelines of the Bank. However, his defence is that the branch is in a politically sensitive area and therefore certain minor errors have occurred.
Such a contention cannot be accepted. If the Branch is in a sensitive area, that does not imply that loans can be granted to the relatives of the same person that too without obtaining appropriate security for the loans advanced. The same would run contrary to the Bank guidelines. That adequate securities were not taken and adequate enquiries were not made while sanctioning the loans. Therefore, the only reason assigned by the workman that the branch being in a sensitive area, some mistakes have crept in cannot be accepted.
The material would also clearly indicate that the first five accounts were all relatable to Sri Iragantappa Madivalar. They were all his relatives namely his mother, sister, relative etc., Therefore, all these accounts are nothing but loans being extended to one and the same person. Hence, this is also another factor that goes against the workman.
Further contention is that a similarly placed workman against whom there were similar charges, an appeal filed by him was entertained and the finding of the Enquiry Officer was set aside. Reliance is therefore placed on the communication of the Bank authorities themselves dated 05.12.2006 which indicates that Sri Mallikarjuna D. Mundewadi, was reinstated on an appeal.
I have considered the said submission. The charge against the petitioner and the charge against the said Sri Mallikarjuna D. Mundewadi, are not identical. Separate charges are levelled against both of them. Only because an enquiry has been held, that does not mean that the charges are one and the same. Independent charges have been levelled against each of them. It is only when charges are identical in nature, it can be said that both have to be treated equally. In the instant case, the facts disclose otherwise. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner should be treated on par with Sri Mallikarjuna D. Mundewadi. Therefore, the contention that the Bank has not treated both of them equally cannot be accepted. The charges against the petitioner are different from the charges against the said Sri Mallikarjuna D. Mundewadi. Therefore, they have received two different punishments. Both of them cannot be said to be identical. Hence, this contention also stands rejected.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. Vs. R. Periyasamy, (2015) 1 LLN 31 : (2015) 1 SCJ 7 have clearly enunciated the manner in which the courts have to consider the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority vide paragraph 8 to 10 and 16 of the said judgment wherein it was held that finding of facts cannot be set aside by itself, merely on the ground of sufficiency or adequacy of evidence. The justification by the High Court to undertake the exercise of analysing the findings of the Enquiry Officer since the workman has been denied his livelihood is a wholly untenable reasoning. A transgression of jurisdiction cannot be justified on the grounds of consequences. Therefore, the order of dismissal therein was upheld.
The facts and circumstances of this case would indicate that substantial evidence and material has been let in by the Bank. There were serious charges against the workman. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence at all. Under these circumstances, I find no good ground to interfere with the well considered order of the Enquiry Officer. Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Rule discharged.