THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3588 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of Indian Bank in 1975, as Clerk. Thereafter, he was promoted as Branch Manager and he was posted in the Sreeparru Branch between August, 1993 and February, 1996. Shortly he was transferred from that place. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 29-09-1997, alleging certain irregularities during his tenure at Sreeparru Branch. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and not satisfied with that, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer. A detailed enquiry was conducted. In his report, the enquiry officer held that except three charges, rest of the 16 were proved. The petitioner was given an opportunity to furnish his remarks to the report of the enquiry officer. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 26-05-2000, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was rejected. He challenges the order of punishment, as confirmed in the appeal. The petitioner contends that most of the irregularities pointed out against him pertain to the sanction of crop loans and that though certain minor lapses were there, the entire loan amount was recovered, and the Bank did not sustain any loss. He contends that the purchase of demand drafts or cheques was also in the interest of the Bank, and that did not result any financial commitment. He pleads that the punishment imposed against him is disproportionate. Heard Sri W.B. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondents. As many as 19 charges were framed against the petitioner, referable to tenure at Sreeparru Branch. Broadly, the charges can be classified into 4 categories. The first is regarding sanction of loans and advances to several borrowers. The second is about purchase of self-cheques on number of occasions. The third pertains to the failure of the petitioner to remit the amount collected from the borrowers/account holders. The fourth is about his failure to deduct income tax in his salary at source, and failure to submit the returns in Form-24. Firstly, the allegation against the petitioner as to sanction of loan is that, he did not verify the title of the borrowers, vis-à-vis their land nor did he affix the photographs on the applications. It was alleged that such irregularity was committed in respect of quite large number of loanees, and the Bank could not initiate steps for recovery, since the loanees are found to be fictitious. The petitioner did not dispute the lapses on his part. His plea was that the loans were recovered subsequently. Being the sanctioning authority, the petitioner was supposed to ensure that the loan is sanctioned against a proper security and that the identity of the loanees is firmly established. Such lapses would certainly affect the recovery process. The allegation that most of the loanees were found to be fictitious, remains unrebutted. Other irregularities as to sanction of loans, such as exceeding the limits, were also made. Secondly, the purchase of cheques by the petitioner was alleged to be contrary to the prescribed norms. Being the head of the Branch, the petitioner was not supposed to undertake such speculative business. Apart from giving scope for financial irregularities, such an exercise would tell upon the reputation of the Bank itself. The third category of allegation is much serious in nature. By giving specific references of the accounts and account holders, the 2nd respondent alleged that the petitioner in one case has remitted the collected amount, months after, and in another case, he did not remit at all. Hardly there was any explanation from the petitioner, nor did he disprove this allegation during the course of domestic enquiry. The fourth allegation is about failure to deduct the tax from his salary. Though this can be treated as minor lapse, the other three steps of allegations, which were held proved, are grave in nature. The petitioner was imposed punishment of compulsory retirement, which would, in fact, enable him to reap the service benefits. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20-01-2011. KO