HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.118 of 2005 (S/B) R.K. Lohani …Petitioner Versus General Manager & others ...Respondents Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned senior counsel with Mr. S.S. Chaudhary and Mrs. Kamakshi Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Dalakoti holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondents. Dated : December 30th 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In the instant case, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dismissing the petitioner from service as confirmed in appeal. As it appears, in relation to conduct of petitioner, while he was Manager of two small branches, certain allegations were afloat. Those were investigated, when, it transpired that many a things said to have been done by the petitioner, require explanation. As a result, a letter was written, with which two annexures were enclosed, giving details of actions of the petitioner, which required explanation. Petitioner did not give a reply thereto. Instead, he pointed out that only after a preliminary investigation was conducted, in the letter seeking explanation, it was held out that petitioner has committed misconduct. No sooner, the said letter of petitioner was received, Disciplinary Authority rectified the mistake of indicating that there was misconduct on the part of the 2 petitioner in the letter asking for explanation, but still then, petitioner did not give any reply to the said letter asking for explanation. As a result, constrained by such action on the part of the petitioner, Disciplinary Authority had no other option but to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner which was done by issuing a chargesheet giving full details of the charges against the petitioner. Despite receipt of the chargesheet, no reply thereto, was given. Still then an Inquiry Officer was appointed. Inquiry Officer went into the charges and found on the evidence on record that each of the charges stand proved. There is no allegation in the petition that the conclusion thus arrived is bereft of evidence on record. The enquiry report was given to the petitioner for his comment and thereafter petitioner was dismissed by the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal having failed, petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. In the writ petition, the principal contention of the petitioner is that there is no allegation that the petitioner caused any loss to the bank. It was contended that in relation to the securities, it was the obligation of the Inspecting Officers to ensure existence thereof. It was also contended that in so far as, withdrawal of cash was concerned, it was the cashier who was responsible. 3. There were five charges against the petitioner. The first was arranging the affairs of the bank, in the matter of grant of loans, in such a way, so that without fulfilling the purposes thereof, subsidies payable by the Government on of such loans account are paid. The said charge has been 3 proved by bringing on record evidence suggesting loans were disbursed but the amounts thereof to some extent were deposited in the account of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and the remaining in the account of the borrowers, who were shown to have obtained such loans. It was proved that the amounts, thus, credited in the accounts were purported to be used by the borrowers by obtaining banker’s cheques under the signature of petitioner, all drawn in the name of persons who were shown to be loanees. Those cheques were encashed from the branch against vouchers issued by petitioner. Thereafter, those loans were shown to have been repaid but much before the date by which those were to be repaid. In the meantime, subsidies were taken away. As against that there is no record suggesting that the loans thus given were used for any development in the area for which Government had proposed and paid the subsidies. The second charge was obtaining of loan by the same people by impersonation. The Inquiry Officer has reported that the evidence on record suggest that the same person having pasted the same picture on different loan application forms obtained loans purporting to show that they are different persons. 4. The third charge was grant of loan to persons when they were already indebted to the bank in relation to some other loan obtained by them. The same was also proved to the hilt by the evidence on record referred to by the Inquiry Officer in his report. 4 5. The fourth charge was that while petitioner went on a loan giving spree, he did not ensure by holding appropriate inspections and by obtaining appropriate documents that the loans have been utilised for the purpose for which they were advanced and accordingly, there is no certainty that the collaterals for such loans are infact intact. The said charge too was proved to the hilt. It transpired in course of enquiry that the inspection register of the relevant year was not available. It also transpired that on the records of the bank estimates and performa invoices only were available. It also transpired that there is nothing on records of the bank that things which were agreed to be purchased by using the loan amounts had infact been purchased. 6. Accordingly, all those four charges stood proved. In addition to that there was another charge regarding preparation of fictitious documents. It was alleged that receipts/bills kept with the records of the bank for the purpose of showing that the loan amounts have been utilized for the purpose for which the same were sanctioned, were fake receipts/bills. The Inquiry Officer has reported that the same has also been proved by evidence on record brought in the enquiry. 7. While acting on the said enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority did not add anything. Therefore, unless petitioner is in a position to establish that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are not based on evidence produced in enquiry, the conclusion would be that the charges against the petitioner stand proved and accordingly, 5 on the basis thereof, Disciplinary Authority could pass the order, as was passed, while concluding the Disciplinary Proceedings. 8. The writ petitioner failed to establish before the Appellate Authority that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are without evidence. Accordingly, the appeal stood dismissed. Before us too, the petitioner has utterly failed to establish that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are based on no evidence produced in course of enquiry. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submitted that since it has not yet come on record that the bank has suffered any monitory loss by any action on the part of the petitioner, the order of dismissal was uncalled for. The fact remains that petitioner was Manager of those two branches of the bank. As such, petitioner was not only a trustee of the bank but was also a trustee of public fund. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner, as such trustee, to take into account public interest rather than his personal or anybody else’s interest. He ensured the conduct of those branches of the bank in such a manner that a few persons, shown to be borrowers of the bank, got public money by way of subsidy without earning the right to get the same i.e. without spending the borrowed money for the purpose for which the same was shown to have been lent to them. Petitioner permitted one borrower to take more than one loan in his pseudo name. Petitioner permitted one borrower to take another loan when 6 he had not repaid his earlier loan. Petitioner did not bother to ensure that securities of bank for the loans granted by it are secured and that they are in existence. On top of that petitioner did not make any effort to ascertain whether the receipts and bills produced by borrowers, suggesting utilisation of loan amounts for the purpose for which the same were lent, are genuine. The question is; can it be said that the petitioner in such circumstances discharged his fiduciary obligations towards the bank and the people at large? The answer to that question will be in the negative. In those circumstances, if on the findings as recorded, services of the petitioner have been terminated, we do not think that a judicial review court has competence to interfere with the same on the ground that the punishment is disproportionate. The writ petition is dismissed. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.12.2010 Arti