IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.859 of 2008 JANARDAN SINGH Son of Sri Kamla Prasad Singh, resident of village Basgitia, P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas. Versus 1. The Executive Director of Punjab National Bank, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. 2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Disciplinary Authority/Disciplinary Action Cell, Interated Zonal Office, Patna (Bihar), 3. Deputy Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Disciplinary Authority/Disciplinary Action Cell Interated Zonal Office, Patna (Bihar). 4. Sri Gajendra Kumar, Enquiry Authority, Sr. Manager Regional Office, Punjab National Bank, Arrah. 5. The General Manager, Appellate Authority, Human Resource Development Division, Head Office, New Delhi. ----------- For the Appellant : M/S. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Vijay Kumar, B.S. Mishra & Arun Kumar Mandal For the Respondents: None. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 10th November, 2008. We heard counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the reviewing authority passed on 27th November, 2007. As a matter of fact, the matter has been re-examined thread-bare in the light of the order passed by this Court on 22nd December, 2006 in C.W.J.C. No. 5502 of 2004 whereby the reviewing authority was directed to re- - 2 - consider the entire matter in the best interest of the Bank and take objective and judicious view in the matter of the petitioner. The Reviewing authority considered the points raised by the appellant n his representation dated 5th January, 2007 and by written summary and personal hearing on 16th April, 2007. This is how the Reviewing Authority re-considered the matter: 9.1 It is evident from the letter dated 01.08.2002 from the Regional Office, Ara (ME-336) that his loaning powers were kept in abeyance (except secured demand loans/overdrafts and Govt. Sponsored loan proposals). However his loaning powers were restored on 27.11.2002 by the Regional Office, Ara (ME-338) on the recommendations of Lead District Manager, Kaimpur. The petitioner neither sought prior permission from the competent authority nor moved for confirmation of his action for having sanctioned 88 loan/limits (between 01.08.2002 to 27.11.2002 in BO: Gorsara) after his loaning powers were kept in abeyance. MW-3 also confirmed these facts. 9.2 His submission that proper opportunity was not given to him and EO had not taken note of Medical Certificate dated 26.11.2003, 19.12.2003 and 09.02.2004 (from two private hospitals) submitted by him through Fax is not tenable. Record reveals that Shri Singh submitted his statement of defence on 28.07.2003 and after considering the same departmental enquiry was instituted on 23.08.2003 Preliminary hearing was conducted on 15.10.2003 in the presence of the petitioner. After submission of exhibits from both sides on 18.11.2003, the enquiry was scheduled to commence from 21.11.2003 but was adjourned on that date. Enquiry could not be held on other successive dates fixed by enquiry officer (on 05.12.2003 and 18.12.2003) as the petitioner informed the Enquiry Officer that he was suffering from jaundice. The Enquiry Officer considering his illness fixed the next hearing on 05.01.2004. Again the petitioner did not appear in the enquiry. As such, the Enquiry Officer fixed the next hearing for 12.01.2004 and advised the petitioner to submit Medical Certificate and pathological report duly attested by Civil Surgeon. The petitioner neither submitted the desired documents to Enquiry Officer nor - 3 - attended the enquiry. After giving him adequate opportunity the Enquiry Officer had to commence ex- parte proceedings in the matter w.e.f. 22.01.2004 and finally concluded the enquiry on 31.01.2004. The copies of the ex-parte proceedings and notices of enquiry proceedings were dispatched after each proceeding to the petitioner under registered post. The Enquiry Officer sent Presenting Officer’s brief dated 21.02.2004 to the petitioner on 23.02.2004 under registered cover to submit his submissions thereon within 15 days. The Enquiry Officer vide his letter dated 16.03.2004 extended the period of submission of defence brief by further 10 days with a view to provide natural justice. Even after the lapse of the extended period, the appellant did not submit his brief. Hence, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings to Disciplinary Authority along with the records of the case vide his letter dated 05.05.2004 holding all the charges except charge II-8 and 18 as proved. The petitioner vide his representation dated 20.03.2004 and 31.03.2004 had requested the Disciplinary Authority to hold de-novo enquiry to enable him to prove his innocence. The Disciplinary Authority did not find any merit in the points raised by the petitioner in his representation and advised him to submit the defence brief to Enquiry Officer. However, the petitioner did not submit the same. The Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 07.05.2004 sent a copy of enquiry report to the petitioner for making submissions. The Disciplinary Authority further issued a reminder dated 31.05.2004 extending further time to submit his representation on enquiry report upto 10.06.2004 but the petitioner did not submit his representation. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner was provided with adequate opportunity of defence at each stage of the proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority after examining the enquiry report and other relevant records imposed the aforesaid major penalty on Shri Singh vide order dated 10.07.2004. 9.3 In respect of charges pertaining to BO: Natwar, Bank’s funds to the tune of Rs.21.82 lacs were fraudulently withdrawn by creating fictitious records against NSCs, FDRs in 5 D/L a/cs in favour of two customers Sh. Satyajit Parasad Singh and Smt. Masum Singh. No delivery of security was made to the bank in D/L 45/28.02.2003 for Rs.4.60 lac, D/L 46/28.02.2003 for Rs.4.30 lacs, D/l 47/28.02.2003 for Rs.4.42 lac & D/L 55/04.03.2003 for Rs.4.30 lac and only fictitious detail of securities was written in documents - 4 - inconsistently whereas in D/L 56/04.03.2003 for Rs.4.20 lac the amount of one Anupam FDR not eligible for D/L was inflated from Rs.15000/- to Rs.115000/- without marking lien in books of the bank and NSC of Rs.40000/- which were in the name of petitioner himself were not got pledged in favour of bank and NSC of Rs.80000/ were not delivered to the Bank. The recovery of the amounts which were fraudulently withdrawn could be possible after putting the petitioner under suspension and filing of an FIR with the local police. Non - occurrence of apprehended loss in case of BO: Natwar, which could be averted due to timely action of the bank, did not belie the gravity of lapses on the part of the petitioner. The charges pertaining to BO: Gorsara, established on the basis of evidences produced in the departmental enquiry relate to reckless financing on massive scale, the summar of which is as under: -  Quick mortality cases were identified in 119 loan accounts amounting to Rs.100.10 lacs.  25 loan accounts were sanctioned beyond service area of the branch.  In 4 CC a/cs over drawings were allowed beyond DP/Limit and not reported to higher authorities.  Fresh loan/limits were sanctioned to 4 parties despite they were defaulters of the bank/other FIs.  CRs were not compiled properly in 47 a/cs.  Financial data was not assessed properly in 12 cc a/cs.  Confirmation for creation of EM was not held in 45 a/cs.  318 KCC loan accounts were disbursed by the petitioner recklessly without completing necessary formalities like CR, EM & NEC etc.  Joint RCs were not held in 21 transport/tractor a/cs.  Routing of sales was nor ensured in CC a/cs.  Bills were not held/end-use was not verifies in 55 loan a/cs.  Stock was not checked in 56 CC a/cs regularly.  Securities were reported sold in 17 CC/TL a/cs but proper steps for recovery were not taken.  CR/Limits were not renewed/reviewed in 94/66 a/cs.  333 a/cs were running irregular and no steps for recovery were made.  He sanctioned 88 loan/limits between 1.8.02 to 27.11.02 even after suspension of his loaning powers by the higher authorities.  Clean OD was allowed in 7 SB a/cs beyond vested - 5 - powers and not was reported to higher authorities. Record reveals that total a/cs pertaining to the charge sheet were 290 (285 at BO: Gorsara and 5 D/L a/cs at BO: Natwar). Out of those 290 a/cs, apprehended loss to the bank in 84 a/cs relating to BO: Gorsara would be Rs.51.26 lac, 42 a/cs are running irregular but apprehended loss is not identified due to availability of sufficient security, 76 a/cs are running regular and 88 a/cs (including 5 D/L a/cs) have since been recovered. There is no record of any contribution by Sh. Janardan Singh towards any recovery either in the a/cs pertaining to BO: Gorsara or for adjustment of D/L sanctioned fraudulently at BO: Natwar. 2. It would be, thus, seen that substantial number of accounts i.e. 42 accounts were found to be irregular and there were outstandings in these accounts There was gross irregularities in the conduct of the petitioner who was at the relevant time working as Manager. The punishment of dismissal without disqualification for future employment, in the circumstances, cannot be said to be unjustified. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-