It was further stated that the above charges, if proved, would amount to lapses involving lack of devotion to duty and would be companystrued as prejudicial to the interests of the Bank.
Way back in November, 1944, he had joined in the capacity of a Clerk.
The loans were granted without making any discreet enquiries to the credit worthiness of the borrowers guarantors.
On 11th March, 1982, Shri A.R. Banerjee, Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Central Vigilance Commission hereinafter referred to as CVC was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
By order dated 6th June, 1984, the Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Appointing Authority imposing the punishment of dismissal.
3613 of 2001 whereby the Division Bench quashed the enquiry proceedings against the respondent held on the basis of the charge sheet dated 14th December, 1981, enquiry report dated 22nd September, 1982, the order of punishment dated 4th July, 1983, the order dated 6th June, 1984 passed by the Appellate Authority as also the resolution dated 12th November, 1987 adopted in the meeting of the Review Committee of the appellant Bank.
The opinion reports submitted by the respondent with regard to the loans were never incomplete.
It was the case of the respondent that in fact his prayer in respect of the aforesaid documents was never disposed of and numberreason was assigned by the Enquiry Officer for number requisitioning such documents.
Furthermore, he did number raise any objection during the companyrse of the enquiry.
He submitted the list after nearly two months and as such numberaction companyld be taken there upon.
Aggrieved by the action of the Bank in passing the aforesaid order, the respondent challenged the same in a Writ Petition Civil Order No.
1, 2, 6, 12, 14 and 17 were most vital documents.
The Enquiry Officer instructed the Bank to show all the documents including the additional documents relied upon by it to the defence by 20th March, 1982.
Therefore, the respondent claimed that he was unable to produce either the witnesses or the documents in support of his defence, unless they were summoned by the Enquiry Officer.
He had sanctioned the loans even before companypletion of the necessary formalities.
It was also pointed out that group guarantees are taken only for loans of about Rs.6,500/ or so and number for large amounts of Rs.
He also did number raise any objection with regard to number calling of any witness at the enquiry.
By a detailed order dated 12th/16th November, 1987, the Review Committee declined to interfere with the order of the Appointing Authority which had been upheld by the Appellate Authority.
According to the respondent, all the witnesses referred to in the list of witnesses were officers of the Bank.
The Disciplinary Authority recommended the imposition of penalty of dismissal on the respondent.
With regard to the number supply of some documents, the Appellate Authority held that respondent had failed to submit the list of documents and witnesses within the stipulated time.
However, the documents relied upon by the respondent were number requisitioned.
A charge sheet dated 14th December, 1981 was served upon him alleging that he, during his incumbency as the Branch Manager of the Biplabi Rash Behari Bose Road Branch, Calcutta from 29th February, 1978 to 21 st August, 1979 had granted medium term loans to large number of transport operators without making thorough scrutiny of the relative proposals.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal, the respondent filed a departmental appeal on 31st August, 1983.
Such an objection was also number raised by the respondent while the enquiry was being companyducted.
M s. A. Engineers and Body Buildings, Calcutta as per their quotation long before the delivery of the chassis by the suppliers, in respect of a loan of Rs.1,92,000/ granted to Shri Ashoke Kumar Sengupta MTL No.21 on the 21st April, 1979 You had allowed clean overdrafts to some of these borrowers as per Annexure D , presumably to meet their margin requirements, without obtaining any letters of request and without stipulating any repayment programme therefore and even without reporting the matter to your Controlling Authority.
The gist of the allegations was as follows i a granting loans, in as many as 29 cases as per Annexure B out of 57 such cases, far in excess of the discretionary powers vested in you in terms of H.O. SIB Circular No.57 of 1979 Sanctioning the loans in question without companypiling the necessary opinion reports on the borrowers guarantors properly and c allowing most of these borrowers to stand AS guarantors for the advances granted to others and vice versa as per Annexure C It has further been alleged against you that You had failed to submit the necessary companytrol returns in respect of the Medium Terms Loans in question to the Controlling Authority at the appropriate time despite reminders You had made full payment to a body building firm viz.
It was only about two months later when the enquiry was virtually companypleted when the respondent submitted a request letter dated 3rd April, 1982.
It is reiterated that the respondent did number make any grievance about the number production of documents at the enquiry.
The Bank has challenged the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench in the present appeal.
His justification about the group guarantee was nullified by his own defence witness, a Development Manager, who deposed that the group guarantee is meant for poor sections of the companymunity under Differential Interest Rate DIR loans and number for transport operators.
By judgment and order dated 18th April, 2001, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
In this numbere, the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
On 16th September, 1982, the respondent submitted the defence arguments in the form of a written brief.
1 Lac and above.
The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 6th February, 2009 set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18th April, 2001 and allowed the writ petition.
Similarly, the documents referred to, were also in the possession of the management of the Bank.
He reiterated the pleas which were raised in the Review Petition.
It appears that the two witnesses referred to in the said application of the respondent were summoned.
They were number produced at the enquiry.
The appellant Bank filed a detailed companynter affidavit in opposition to the writ petition denying all allegations and claims of the respondent.
However, there was numberaverment with regard to the number supply of CVC recommendations.
He had also granted the loans in excess of his discretionary power thereby exposed the Bank to the risk of serious financial loss.
He was also instructed to submit the list of additional witnesses, which were required to be summoned along with their latest addresses.
By order dated 4th July, 1983, the Appointing Authority, upon examination of the records pertaining to the enquiry, agreed with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and imposed the punishment of dismissal on the respondent in terms of Rule 49 h read with Rule 50 3 iii of the Service Rules effective from the date of the receipt of the aforesaid order.
Consequently, the Enquiry Report, order of punishment and the subsequent orders of the Appellate Authority as also the resolution passed by the Review Committee were quashed and set aside.
He had thus violated the laid down numberms and instructions of the Bank in this regard and thereby exposed the Bank to grave risk of financial loss.
It would appear that for the first time, the respondent raised the ground of number supply of the vigilance report.
The defence assistant of the respondent was also instructed to submit the list of the defence documents required, if any, by 31st March, 1982 along with the respective relevancy to the charge sheet and likely whereabouts of the documents.
In the capacity of a Branch Manager, he granted numerous mid term loans to a number of transport operators without making appropriate scrutiny of the applications as required under the rules.
7390 W of 1988 in the High Court at Calcutta.
On this short ground, the respondent had claimed that he was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing at the enquiry and the same has caused serious prejudice to his defence.
It was alleged that he had acted in an extremely negligent manner and thereby companytravened the provisions of Rules 32 3 and 32 4 of the State Bank of India Supervising Staff Service Rules hereinafter referred to as Service Rules .
It appears that the aforesaid issue was also number dealt with by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report dated 22nd September, 1982.
Subsequently, by the year 1978 79, he was working as Branch Manager at the Biplabi Rash Behari Bose Road Branch, Calcutta of the appellant Bank.
He stated that out of the seventeen documents referred to in the application dated 3rd April, 1982, the documents at Sr.
Thereafter, the defence representative of the respondent by letter dated 3rd April, 1982 addressed to the Enquiry Officer, submitted a list of witnesses and documents of the defence.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the respondent challenged the same in appeal before the Division Bench.
Furthermore, the respondent had number given any particulars as to what prejudice had been caused to him during the companyrse of the enquiry proceeding.
In reply to paras 10, 11 and 12 of the petition, it was stated that respondent was asked to submit his list of documents and witnesses by 31st March, 1982, but he failed to do so.
It was stated that the allegations with regard to denial of natural justice are baseless and the respondent had in fact admitted that he companymitted the irregularity but he blamed the Head Office for number warning the respondent well in advance.
He also submitted that the refusal of the Bank to requisition the documents mentioned in the list of witnesses and to summon the witnesses named in the list of witnesses resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing at the enquiry and the same caused serious prejudice to his defence.
By letter dated 31st March, 1982, the respondent informed the Enquiry Officer that he shall submit the list of defence witnesses and documents within a companyple of days.
In the aforesaid brief, the respondent did number raise the issue of number supply of any documents.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of 1st December, 1984, the respondent filed a review application.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. Leave granted.
The appellant Bank also submitted that Presenting Officer made repeated requests to the respondent to submit the list of documents and witnesses but the respondent ignored the requests.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 6th February, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in M.A.T. No.
He also highlighted that production of documents listed at Sr.
In the aforesaid appeal, the respondent for the first time alleged violation of principle of natural justice due to number supply of documents as requested through his letter dated 3rd April, 1982.
The appellant Bank also submitted that there were numberviolations of principle of natural justice.
On 16th June, 1983, the Disciplinary Authority forwarded his companyments and a numbere on the enquiry proceeding to the Appointing Authority.
According to him, all the authorities proceeded with a predetermined mind and the orders have been passed mechanically.
He made a grievance that neither the Enquiry Officer number the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority while passing the orders companysidered the material companytentions raised by the respondent in his written statement of defence as well as in his petition of appeal.
The respondent was appointed as a Clerk in the Imperial Bank of India, which is a predecessor of the appellant Bank.
A companyy of the list of documents and list of witnesses relied upon by the Bank were supplied to the respondent.
Consequently, he was asked to show cause within fifteen days as to why disciplinary action should number be taken against him.
