Judgment:
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.16190/2006 dated 05.09.2011.)
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16190/2006 dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed the present appeal.
2. The case of the petitioner / appellant is that he joined the service of the respondent-bank in the year 1983 and was confirmed thereafter. He was promoted to various posts. He was working as the Branch Manager in Tekkalakote. Thereafter, he was transferred to Bellary Branch. While serving at the Bellary Branch, he was called upon to answer certain allegations regarding irregularities during his functioning at Tekkalakote. He submitted his reply. The same was not accepted. An enquiry was ordered. The Inquiring Officer held that the charges were proved.
3. The Disciplinary Authority issued a second show-cause notice. The same was replied to. The Disciplinary Authority however negated the objections and imposed a punishment of dismissal from service and denied the gratuity payable to him.
4. The appeal filed by him before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed. Hence, he filed the instant writ petition before the learned Single Judge questioning the impugned orders. The writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
5. Shri.M.N.Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the impugned orders are bad in law and liable to be set-aside. That adequate opportunity was not granted to the appellant to defend himself. That when the appellant sought for permission to furnish the documents, the documents were not granted. That several inspection reports which formed the basis of the proceedings were not furnished to him. Therefore, he was unable to defend himself. That the charges are vague, especially with reference to the norms and guidelines relating to lending loan under goods loan, etc. That the loan accounts having been settled under a one settlement, there is no loss to the Bank. Hence, he pleads that the order of dismissal is unfair and requires to be set-aside.
6. On the other hand, Shri.K.Radhesh Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents defends the impugned orders. He submits that there is no error committed by the authorities or the learned Single Judge that calls for interference. That adequate opportunity was granted to the appellant to defend himself. He had failed to do so. On the basis of the material and evidence on record, an enquiry report was submitted against him. Hence, there is no error committed by the authority that calls for interference.
7. Heard learned counsels.
8. With regard to the first contention that he was denied access to the documents, the learned Single Judge negated the same. The learned Single Judge held that he was granted permission to visit the branch and obtain the necessary documents. But he did not do so. Therefore, it was he who has to be blamed and not the bank. That even though the bank permitted him to visit the branch to check and inspect the documents, he did not do so. Therefore, the first ground cannot be accepted.
9. The second ground insofar as non-furnishing of the investigating report, the same was also held against him. That even though the copies of the reports were not furnished to him, the petitioner has examined all the reports in terms of Annexure-I to the statement of objections coupled with Annexure-D to the writ petition. The petitioner has cross-examined the Investigating Officer during the course of the proceedings. Therefore, having cross-examined the Investigating Officer, mere non-receipt of the reports cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the petitioner.
10. The third contention is that the charges are vague, cannot be accepted. The basis for the charges that there was repeated demand for clarification as to the norms and guidelines relating to the lending of goods loan. The petitioner was a branch manager and he was expected to know the norms and guidelines of lending of loan under the goods loan and at such a belated stage after certifying so many loans, it cannot be said that he was not aware of the norms and guidelines. Therefore, such a contention is also negated.
11. The last contention is that there is no financial loss to the bank since there was a one time settlement, so far as the loan account is concerned. This too we are of the view cannot be held in favour of the appellant. A one time settlement of the loan account necessarily leads to loss to the bank. It cannot be said that only because the loan accounts have been closed, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. In fact it is only because of his actions that the bank has suffered a loss.
12. Furthermore, it could be seen that the manner in which the loans were granted is questionable. The particulars of the goods loan account sanctioned would show that when the loans were sanctioned to one member of the family, the second member has stood as surety and when the very surety himself has applied for the loan, the earlier borrower has stood as surety. This has been done for all the members of the family. Therefore, it is quite evident that the bank was put in a very disadvantageous position and it is apparent the manner in which the petitioner has dealt with the loan accounts.
13. For all aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that there is no error committed by the authorities in passing the impugned order. The facts and material on record would clearly indicate the guilt of the petitioner. We find no good reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents. We are of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal. The learned Single Judge has extensively dealt with all the contentions advanced and by placing reliance on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the principles of the law, has dismissed the writ petition. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has extensively dealt with all the contentions and has accorded valid reasons for the same. We are of the considered view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference from any angle whatsoever. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.