Being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the respondent, the Bank issued a charge sheet along with Statement of Allegations dated 15.12.2006 through the AGM Disciplinary Authority to hold a domestic enquiry against the respondent in terms of Regulation 6 of the Regulations 1976, levelling 7 charges which are extracted hereunder for easy reference i that the respondent granted indiscriminate excess drawings over the sanctioned Cash Credit Limits of various parties beyond his delegated power and without prior approval from Controlling Office ii that while granting unauthorized excess drawings, the respondent companycealed the said fact from the companytrolling office iii that the respondent failed to induce the parties to observe credit discipline and indulged in granting them unauthorized accommodation detriment to the interest of the bank iv that before disbursement of credit facility, respondent did number take companylateral security in respect of various cash credit borrowers violating sanction stipulation rather extended the enhanced limit in favour of the borrowers etc.
Aggrieved by the said order of AGM, Respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, namely DGM, Personnel Services, Department, Head Office.
Detailed enquiry was companyducted and, ultimately, the enquiry report dated 12.3.2008 was submitted to the AGM.
Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge sheet dated 15.12.2006 was issued to him by AGM following the above mentioned circular dated 118.2004, which companyferred powers on AGM since the irregularities occurred or companymitted when he was functioning at the Branch Office.
as most of the accounts turned potential NPA NPA.
Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, respondent filed a writ petition No.
Consequently, a show cause notice dated 23.3.2006 was issued by the Chief Officer, Regional Office, Kolkata.
Respondent was later transferred and posted as the Senior Chief Officer at the Head Office of the Bank situated at Kolkata in August 2005.
AGM companycurred with the findings of the Enquiring Officer in respect of the charges, including Charge No.
Appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 22.7.2008.
1546 of 2008 before the High Court of Calcutta, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge of the High Court vide its judgment dated 19.11.2009.
The reply submitted by the respondent was companysidered by AGM in the capacity of the Disciplinary Authority and he found the same unsatisfactory and decided to hold a departmental enquiry against the respondent and appointed Shri Benod Bihari Hazra, Retired Executive of the Bank as an Enquiring Authority to enquire into various charges leveled against the respondent.
v that the respondent did number take steps for creation of valid stipulation in various cases and failed to effectively monitor companytrol and supervise the following advance accounts to protect the interest of the bank vi that the respondent in blatant violation of the sanctioned limits in the case of M s J.C. Traders released the enhanced amount to the borrower in undue haste and thus allowed overdrawing approx.
Appeal was preferred by the respondent to the Division Bench vide A.P.O. No.
The Respondent joined the services of the Appellant UCO Bank for short Bank as the Field Officer on 11.11.1978.
A companyy of the enquiry report was served on the respondent, to which he filed a detailed reply.
Respondent functioned as the Senior Manager in the Bansdroni Branch of the Bank from 15.10.2001 to 23.8.2005.
Respondent filed his reply to the said show cause notice on 17.4.2006.
He was later promoted to the scale of MMGS III on 17.7.2001.
AGM, after companysidering the reply submitted by the respondent, passed final order on 19.4.2008, in exercise of his powers companyferred under Regulation 4 of the Regulations 1976 and imposed penalty of dismissal from service.
342 of 2009 and the Bench vide its judgment dated 19.12.2011 allowed the appeal holding that AGM has numberjurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
4, which the AGM found to be fully proved.
Respondent filed his reply to the said charge sheet on 17.1.2007.
Rs.2 crores to the borrower party beyond the amount stipulated for the disbursement against the sanctioned enhanced limit vii That the respondent showed inclination to accommodate various parties in an irregular and unauthorized manner by abusing his official position and deliberately displayed indifference to banks interest and exposed the bank to financial loss of Rs.598.07 lacs approx.
The Division Bench also directed reinstatement of the respondent into service along with all companysequential benefits, against which this appeal has been preferred by the Bank.
