IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2461 of 2008 JANARDAN SINGH, son of Sri Kamla Prasad Singh, resident of Village Basgitia, Police Station – Bikramganj, District – Rohtas…. Petitioner Versus 1. The Executive Director of Punjab National Bank, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Disciplinary Authority/Disciplinary Action Cell, Integrated Zonal Office, Patna (Bihar) 3. Deputy Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Disciplinary Authority/Disciplinary Action Cell, Integrated Zonal Office, Patna (Bihar) 4. Sri Gajendra Kumar, Enquiry Authority, Senior Manager Regional Office, Punjab National Bank, Arrah 5. The General Manager, Appellate Authority, Human Resource Development Divison, Head Office, New Delhi ……Respondents ******* 03- 30.9.2008 Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar for the petitioner, and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh appears for the respondent Bank. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2007 (Annexure 16), whereby the petitioner’s second review application has been rejected, and the order of dismissal from service passed by the learned reviewing authority has been upheld. 2. A brief resume of facts is essential for the disposal of this writ petition. The petitioner had functioned as Manager (Incharge) at Branch Office, Gorasara, for the period 28.6.99 to 22.2.2003. He had thereafter functioned as Manager (Incharge) at Branch Office, Natwar, for the period 24.2.2003 to 16.3.2003. He was served with charge-sheet dated 10.7.2003, on the following articles of charges, which are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick - 2 - reference :- “2.1 Shri Jarandan Singh in connivance with the parties has exercised his vested power causing undue loss to the Bank for concomitant gain to an individual by the flagrant violation of systems &procedures at BO Natwar. 2.2 Shri Janardan Singh sanctioned and disbursed loans in gross violation of Bank’s prescribed rules, procedures, guidelines and established practice of pre-sanction appraisal and failed to conduct post-sanction follow-up at BO Gorsara. 2.3 He sanctioned/disbursed loans despite suspension of his loaning powers by the controlling authority at BO Gorsara. 2.4 He failed to exercise his loaning powers judiciously at BO Gorsara and in the process allowed clean OD in an unauthorized manner without reporting to his controlling authority.” 3. After a detailed enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted, according to which, most of the charges were held to have been proved, and the remaining charges were held not to have been proved. On a consideration of the enquiry report and other materials, major penalty of “dismissal which shall not be disqualification for future employment”, was imposed upon the petitioner passed by the Deputy General Manager, being the disciplinary authority, by order dated 10.7.2004. The petitioner preferred appeal which was rejected by the General Manager, being the appellate authority, by his order dated 27.10.2004. The petitioner preferred a review application which was rejected by the Executive Director, being the reviewing authority, by his order dated 4.3.2005. This was followed by CWJC No.5502 of 2004, which was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure 1). This Court noted the Bank’s submission that it was less interested in the petitioner’s punishment , - 3 - and was really interested in realization of the loan amounts advanced by the petitioner to the loanees. In that view of the matter, this Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh review application before the learned reviewing authority to enable the petitioner to satisfy him that the loan amount had been recovered. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application for review on 5.1.2007, and was followed by written summary before the reviewing authority. Inspite of the valid service of notice and repeated opportunities, the petitioner did not appear before the reviewing authority and the petitioner did not make any effort to satisfy him that the loan amount had been recovered. The same has been disposed of by a detailed order dated 27.11.2007 (Annexure 16), wherein the entire history of the matter has been delineated. The learned reviewing authority has held that some of the loans had been advanced on the basis of fictitious detail of securities, and held the charges held to have been proved and related to reckless financing on massive scale. The summary of the advances are indicated in the impugned order which is as follows:- 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 defaulter 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/c. 318KCC 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 not ensured in CC a/cs’. - 4 - Bills were not held/end-use was not verified in 55 loan a/cs. Stock was not checked in 56 CC a/cs. regularly. Securities were reported sold in 17 CC/TL a/c 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/c beyond vested powers and not was reported to higher authorities. ” 4. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl