1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2488 of 2016 ------- Bhagirath Keshri, son of Late Puran Chandra Keshri, Resident of Subhnath Deogam Nagar Dumbisai Tungri Chaibasa, P.O Chaibasa, P.S. Muffasil, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand -833201. ... Petitioner Versus 1.Jharkhand Gramin Bank through its Chairman, having its office at: Rajendra Palace, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O & P.S.: Chutia, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN-834001. 2.The Chairman, Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Appellate Authority, Head Office having its office At: Rajendra Palace, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, P.S. & P.S.: Chutia, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN -834001. 3.The General Manager and Competent Authority, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Head Office having its office at: Rajendra Palace, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O & P.S.: Chutia, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN-834001. 4.The Regional Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Singhbhum Region having its office Amlatola Chaibasa, P.O Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District: West Singhbhum, Jharkhand, PIN -833201. 5.The Branch Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Kiriburu Branch under Singhbhum Region, P.O & P.S.: Kiriburu, District: West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, Jharkhand, PIN -833205. … … Respondents ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahdeo Choudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shravan Kumar, Advocate ------ C.A.V on 20.04.2017 Delivered on 25/07/2017 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing penalty order dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure
10) passed by General Manager and Competent Authority as well as the appellate order dated 12.02.2016 (Annexure
12) passed by the Chairman and Appellate Authority and further prayer has been made for direction upon the 2 respondents to upgrade the petitioner on the post of Scale II Officer.
2. The facts, in brief, is that initially the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Bank to the post of Branch Manager Scale I Officer on 08.10.1982 and while continuing as such a memo of charge dated 24.10.2013 was served upon him for certain irregularities in sanctioning/disbursement of loans and advances at Kiriburu Branch during his tenure as Branch Manager, to which, petitioner replied vide letter dated 07.12.2013 denying all the allegations. Being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, in which, enquiry officer was appointed, who after enquiry submitted his report basing on which, the disciplinary authority imposed the impugned penalty of “downgrade of Scale from MMG-II to JMG-I and fitment of pay at the initial of JMG-I i.e. Rs. 23,700/- till superannuation with cumulative effect” under Regulation No. 39 1(b) of Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal but the appellate authority confirmed the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceeding through his defence representative but some important documents being demanded by the petitioner for his defence were neither provided on the pretext that the same were privileged documents and some of them are not in custody of the presenting officer. Furthermore, 3 the request of the petitioner to examine some relevant borrowers in the enquiry so that he can prove his innocence regarding the allegations/charges of non-existence of some borrowers was outrightly rejected on the ground that outsiders are not allowed in the departmental enquiry, which has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. On the contrary in the same respondent-bank in other cases the delinquents were allowed to present the borrowers as defence witnesses but the petitioner has been denied an opportunity to examine such witness/borrower, as such the entire enquiry proceedings as well as findings recorded by the enquiry officer are ultra-virus, mala fide and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that most of the charges are related to the alleged transactions made six years back and during the course of departmental enquiry, M.W. 1 has categorically stated in his depositions as well as cross-examination that when the petitioner joined the Kiriburu Branch as Branch Manager, there was NIL NPA and subsequent slippage of NPA, if any, he is solely responsible not the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no second show cause notice or opportunity of personal hearing was provided prior to awarding harsh punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that actually the disciplinary authority pre-decided to punish the petitioner with major penalty, which reflects from the intimation letter for holding enquiry, wherein it has been written that “in the capacity as Competent Authority, has decided to institute disciplinary proceedings against you for major penalty alleged to have committed by you …..”. It has been submitted that 4 the petitioner through his defence representative has altogether submitted 82 defence exhibits, to show that all shops/activities were existence to negate the charge no. 1 alleging therein that shop/business were non-existent and borrowers are not traceable. Further, the petitioner has also submitted the written statement of borrowers, wherein they have categorically stated that they have taken loans for different purpose and they are living separately and they do not belong to same family to negate charge no. 5, wherein it is alleged that undue financing was extended to more than one number of families for the same trade/business/shop. But, brushing aside these clinching piece of evidence, impugned order of punishment has been passed. It has further been submitted that only on the basis of presumption, which has got no rational nexus between the allegation and its presumption, harsh punishment has been awarded.
4. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner committed serious misconducts in sanctioning/disbursing of loans violating the Bank's norms, departmental proceeding was initiated against him, in which, after thorough enquiry, all the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved. Learned senior counsel for the respondents further submitted that the whole departmental enquiry was proceeded in adherence with the principles of natural justice and claim of the petitioner that he was not allowed to present defense witness is misleading as every opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend his case. It has further been 5 submitted that it is the petitioner and his representatives who neither ever demanded nor presented any defense witness in whole proceeding, which fact is supported from the minutes of proceeding dated 14.07.2015 where on being asked whether the petitioner wants to present any more exhibits or witness, the answer was given in negative. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in banking sector, trust is of paramount consideration, and act of the petitioner amounts to breach of trust and confidence. So far quantum of punishment is concerned, it is in commensurate with the proved charges, which never warrants any interference. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the respondents referred to the decision rendered in the case of Jayesh Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors as reported in 2016 (1) JLJR457and further in the case of Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce as reported in (2006) 10 SCC572 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of punishment dated 23.11.2015 at Annexure 10 and appellate order dated 12.02.2016 at Annexure 12, do not warrant interference by this Court for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i).On perusal of record, it appears that for irregularities in sanctioning/disbursement of the loans and advances to the extent that the petitioner extended loans to non-existent businesses, sanctioned the loans without assessing credit needs, financed the loan to more than one members of the 6 family for the same business, obtained defective documents and assets purchased from bank's loan kept uninsured thereby violating Bank's lending norms, a thorough enquiry was conducted in strict adherence of principles of natural justice and service condition of the Bank. In the enquiry, every opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend his case by placing documentary as well as oral evidence. After enquiry, the enquiry officer in its enquiry report held the petitioner guilty, copy of which was forwarded to petitioner and accordingly the petitioner submitted his defence and only thereafter, the impugned order was passed. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred appeal, in which also the petitioner was given personal hearing and after that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. Hence, at no point of time there has been any violation of principles of natural justice. (ii).In the case at hand, it is a case where the Bank has lost its confidence on the petitioner and it is established principles of law that once the employer lost confidence on its employee, the punishment order of downgrade of scale MMG-II to JMG-I, as is in this case, must be immune from challenge as for discharging the office of trust the highest standard of honesty and integrity is required. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Neni Chand Nalwaya as reported in AIR2011SC1931 wherein the Hon'ble Apex hold that Courts while interfering in the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shall also consider the fact of loss of confidence in employee. 7 (iii).So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, in view of the fact that since the banking sector is based on trust and faith, which safeguards the trust of both the customer and banker, in view of the discussions made herein above, in the case wherein the basic fabric of trust has been upset, the punishment awarded needs no interference on the ground of doctrine of proportionality.
6. Viewed thus, the case at hand does not present special features warranting any interference by the Court in limited exercise of its powers of judicial review. In such a fact situation, I am of the considered opinion that impugned orders does not call for any interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition, sans merits, is dismissed. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-