K.SEMA,J The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 2nd August, 2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the imposition of penalty of removal inflicted upon the respondent, who is a bank officer, preceded by an inquiry, is set aside with a direction to the appellant to reinstate the respondent with all companysequential benefits including that of back wages, to be paid within a period of three months.
Of Cheq.
You failed to use the material information to protect the Banks interest.
Date pf STDR Amt.
GROUNDS ON WHICH BASED You negotiated with the Branch Manager, Jogeshwari w Branch on behalf of Sarvashri Kishor Bidaye and D.B. Angane about the credit facilities to be extended to them against deposits to be received and vouched for bonafides and creditworthiness of the said individuals and assured to recover at short numberice loans granted there against.
32 4 of the State Bank of India Supervising Staff Service Rules.
The appellants bank, thereafter, initiated a Departmental Inquiry.
CHARGE CHARGE 1 You, when posted at Palghar Branch as Manager B.D. negotiated with a fraudulent intention to extend credit facilities against deposits to be received from Trusts to Sarvashri Kishore Bidaye and D.B. Angane at Jogeshwari W Branch and induced the Branch Manager, Jogeshwari W branch to accept Trust Funds in Terms Deposits and also caused issue of TDRs in the individual names with the funds received for investment in their own names Trusts .
You visited Jogeshwari w Branch on various dates accompanied by others including the said persons and caused issue of STDRs in the name of Shri Bidaye Shri Angane against clearing cheques received from the under numbered Boards.
A companyplaint was made by a Trust regarding Term Deposit Receipts being issued in the name of Bidaye and granting overdraft facilities to him on the basis of such TDR.
The respondent also ensured sanctioning of overdraft facility against the STDRs.
Cheque Amt.
However, the respondent insisted that the funds were meant for Bidaye and Angane and thereby, induced the Branch Manager to accept the Trust funds as Term Deposits and issue TDRs in the names of Bidaye and Angane.
On the basis of the aforesaid charges, the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries in the Central Vigilance Commission, Govt.
A cheque was issued in favour of the State Bank of India, which was to be invested in the name of the Trust Board.
You also gave your residential address as the legal address of Shri Bidaye.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No.
Thereafter, by an order dated 8.12.90 the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from the services of the Bank.
You also prevailed upon the Branch Manager Manager P.B.D. to sanction overdraft limit threagainst to the said persons.
He had also introduced the said current account by giving his old Andheri address at Bombay as the address of Bidaye.
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows The respondent was working as an officer under the appellant bank and at the relevant time he was posted as Manager, Personnel Banking Division, Palghar Branch.
The Inquiry Officer, after making a detailed inquiry, submitted its report dated 31.1.90 holding that the charges against the respondent stand proved.
3.75 Sind Shri Lacs National Bidaye Collegiate Board.
You thus acted dishonestly and in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Official violating Rule No.
5 lacs Rs.
TDR Limit From Favouring Sanct Ioned The Railway Rs.2 lacs 26.06.86 236386 Rs.
Of OD Recd.
You were well aware of the intentions and motives of Shri Bidaye and Shri Angane to defraud the Bank.
Lacs Clearing and Bidaye Forwarding Establishment Nathdwere Rs.2 lacs 8.07.86 236199 Rs.2 lacs Rs.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court, it appears that pursuant to the observations made by the High Court, the petitioner bank reduced the punishment of dismissal to removal.
Sometime in June, 1986 the respondent introduced one Shri Kishor Bidaye and Shri D.B. Angane to the Branch Manager Jogeshwari W Branch.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected by the order dated 29.10.91.
of India was appointed as the Inquiry Officer.
The following charges were framed against the respondent ARTICLE OF CHARGE TOGETHER WITH THE GROUNDS ON WHICH IT IS BASED SHRI R.D. PUNDE UNDER SUSPENSION FRAUD AT JOGESHWARI W BR.
1.50 Temple Board Shri Lacs Bidaye Security Rs.5 lacs 12.07.86 586504 Rs.5 lacs Rs.
so issued.
Accordingly you introduced Shri Kishor Bidaye and caused his current Account to be opened in the books of Jogeshwari w Branch knowing fully well that Shri Bidaye is a defaulter borrower of our Pimpri Branch.
2 lacs Rs.1.50 Goods Shri.
3.75 Guards Board Shri Lacs For Greater Angane Bombay and Thane Distt.
Hyderabad Rs.5 lacs 21.07.86 586542 Rs.
The High Court, on re appreciation of evidence, reversed the finding of the Inquiry Officer and set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority.
The respondent brought said Shri Bidaye to the Branch Manager and got a current account opened in the name of Shri Bidaye.
You ensured that STDR were issued in individual names and that overdrafts were sanctioned there against although you were well aware that it was in violation of Banks prescribed numberms, procedures, instructions on the subject.
You assisted the said persons despite knowing their fraudulent motives.
It is also alleged that the respondent exerted pressure to grant overdraft on the same day of remittance of funds and emphatically stated that it would be his responsibility if anything went wrong.
TDR No.
