Writ Petition No.1620 of 2006. Case: R.M. Yadav Vs Bank of India & Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No.1620 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. R.D. Bhat, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. R.S. Pai with Mr. Anand Pai, Mr. A.K. Gopalan i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co. |
| Judges | Anoop V. Mohta & G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Judgement Date | October 25, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
-
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 17 December 2004 by which the Respondents imposed on the Petitioner a major penalty of 'compulsory retirement' in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. This order is confirmed by the Appellate Authority as also by a further order of the Reviewing Authority, which are also challenged.
-
In the year 2003 the Petitioner was working with Respondent No.1 as a Branch Manager with the Agardanda branch, in Alibag District. The Disciplinary Authority issued a memorandum dated 30 October 2003 alongwith statement of charges alleging that the Petitioner has failed to discharge duties with utmost integrity, devotion and diligence and the Petitioner has failed to protect the interest of the bank and if the charges are proved would amount to breach of Regulations 3(1), 20(4) and 24 of Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (for short "the said Regulations"). The statement of allegations contained two Articles of charges. Charge No.1 pertained to five loan accounts. Without referring to the intricate details, the charges can be summarized as under:-
Charge I
(A) Loan account of Mr.Narendra B.Hedulkar:-
(i) The Account of Shri.Narendra B.Hedulkar was not eligible to be considered for loan under the KVIC scheme who was sanctioned loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for a Dhaba.
(ii) He was already sanctioned a loan for ration shop which itself was running out of order. The Petitioner was in full knowledge of this fact. The Petitioner's actions were deliberate to accommodate the borrower and give undue advantage of Government subsidy. Further, the amount was not disbursed in stages but full amount was transferred to the saving bank account of the borrower and end use was not verified. Stale quotation of Rs.3.17 lakhs dated 22 March 2001 was considered in the proposal. The project of Dhaba never took of for which loan was granted.
(iii) After sanctioning of loan, it was reported that the Petitioner had borrowed Rs.40,000/- on 18 October 2001 from the said borrower which was not repaid.
(iv) The loan account had become NPA and the chances of recovery are negligible.
(B) Loan account of Mr.Rushikant Dongarikar:-
(i) This account holder was a recipient of earlier loan on 15 January 1998. The account was irregular which was got closed by the Petitioner on 15 April 2002 by a cash deposit of Rs.22,740/- and granted fresh loans aggregating Rs.2.5 lakhs on 21 May 2002 (Rs.1 lakh for spare part business and Rs.1.5 lakhs for cable network). It was stated that the quotations in support of the loan application were not verified and the end use was not checked, credit assessment was not done properly. The accounts were grossly out of order and have turned NPA.
(ii) The Petitioner had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from this borrower as hand loan before sanction of the loan and subsequently Rs.20,000/- was borrowed after 15 days and the Petitioner was yet to repay the entire amount of Rs.30,000/-. The charge stated that the modus operandi was clear.
(C) Loan account of Mr.Avinash Vithal Khot:-
(i) Full loan amount was disbursed by crediting saving bank account of the borrower instead of making direct payment to the supplier which was against the norms of the bank. Credentials of the person were not checked as the other relatives were NPA. An amount of Rs.10,000/was diverted on 21 March 2002 to close the NPA account from the disbursed loan amount when the loan was actually disbursed for spare parts business. The quotations supporting the loan application were also not verified. The end use was also not verified. The borrower was never engaged in the activities of the spare parts.
(D) Loan account of Mr.Sujan K.Birje:-
(i) The loan pertained to trading in imitation jewellery. The business premises were not mentioned in the proposal. The amount was directly credited to the saving bank account instead of making payment to the supplier. The borrower was not staying at the address given in the application but was staying at Mumbai. The account had turned NPA in the very first year of loan disbursement.
(E) Loan account of Mr.Hikmat Abdulla Dayanji:-
(i) He was sanctioned loan of Rs.3.30 lakhs for purchase of pickup van but was credited with an amount of Rs.3 lakhs directly to the saving bank account of the borrower instead of making direct payment to the supplier of the vehicle. This was against the bank procedure and norms. Thereafter, the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- was disbursed crediting the saving bank account of the borrower, and this was for payment of road tax insurance and registration which were already done prior to disbursement of the loan.
(ii) It is alleged that the borrower withdrew Rs.30,000/- from his account and paid the amount to the Petitioner in cash on 24 October 2001 which was never paid back by the Petitioner.
Charge II
(i) It was alleged that the Petitioner had deposited substantial amount of Rs.4,76,933/- in cash within six months of Petitioner's posting as Branch Manager in account No.1 and SB account 2870 (joint account with son). The cash deposits were beyond the known sources of income and take home salary of the Petitioner and datewise credits are set out.
(ii) During his tenure as a Branch Manager, the Petitioner purchased a four wheeler commercial vehicle for which the Petitioner got transferred Rs.5 lakhs from his OD Account no.2870 and a demand draft was issued to the supplier for which no exchange / bank charges were paid. Further no intimation was given to the competent authority for acquisition of such high value movable property which was in Bank Regulation 20(4) of the said Regulations.
-
Alongwith the chargesheet, the Petitioner was given a list of documents alongwith written statements of the borrowers. The documents in respect of each of the charges were furnished to the Petitioner. As also a list of witnesses proposed to be examined on behalf of the bank was also furnished to the Petitioner. The Petitioner by his letter dated 11 November 2003 denied the charges interalia stating that except one account, the other accounts were in regular order. As regards...
To continue reading
Request your trial