IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7036 of 2000 Chandra Mohan Prasad Sinha S/O Late Surendra Narayan Sinha, resident of village Parawna P.S. Parawna, District Saran (Chapra) at present Branch Manager, Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikash Bank Ltd., Jhanjharpur, District Madubani Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Administrator, Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikash Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna 3. Deputy Managing Director (Establishment), Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikash Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, Onkar Kumar & Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocates For the Bank :Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :Mr. Ram Naresh Prasad, AC to AAG-I 04/ 29.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Bihar State Land Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Branch Manager of the Vaishali Branch of the Bank. He is aggrieved by the order dated 7.9.1999, Annexure- 1 to this application, whereunder he has been dismissed from the service of the Bank in the light of the enquiry report, Annexure-4. Two charges are levelled against the petitioner, namely, that he sanctioned loan to 25 farmers for sinking of Boring and purchase of Pump- 2 set, the supplies were either not made or incomplete supply was made. The other charge levelled against him is that he issued cheque for delivery of the Boring and Pump-set together violating the rules of the Bank. The Enquiry officer having examined the Detail Voucher File of each of the 25 loanees, recorded a finding that loans for sinking Boring and purchase of Pump-sets were sanctioned in favour of 25 loanees without proper documentation and the supply was made without obtaining the certificates, as is required under different forms for which Field Officers, Dealer and the Loanees are responsible, but the petitioner- Branch Manager is also held responsible for not ensuring proper compliance of the instructions of the Bank. While recording such finding, the Enquiry officer held that the petitioner took steps against four of the loanees for lodging the First Information Report when he learnt that they have sold the asset, which was created on the basis of the loan, but held that petitioner cannot be absolved of the aforesaid two charges levelled against him. The enquiry report was 3 considered by the Disciplinary Authority, who found that out of the total loan amount sanctioned by the petitioner to all the loanees, the entire amount stood recovered, except, Rs. 2,73,000/-. Had the loan amount been recovered in full, the Bank may have taken a lenient view against the petitioner, but as the loan amount could not be recovered in full, it appears, petitioner was dismissed from service under the impugned order dated 7.9.1999, Annexure-1 ignoring his 28 years of service during which he was never proceeded against for any misconduct. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the transfer of the petitioner from Vaishali Branch of the Bank, successor Branch Manager and others never took any steps for recovery of the balance loan amount of Rs. 2,73,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in appreciation of the fact that petitioner had served the Bank without any complaint against him for 28 years and that from the enquiry report itself, it will appear that he is not solely responsible for the lapses, this 4 Court may at least consider to recommend for conversion of the punishment imposed to a lighter punishment. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. Vs. The Workmen, reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1914, paragraph 4 at page 1916, submitted that during the enquiry proceeding, no witness was examined and such enquiry should not be relied upon to maintain the punishment order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. Sardar Bahadur, reported in (1972) 4 Supreme Court Cases 618 to submit that documents produced during the enquiry should have been proved by any officer of the Bank and as those documents were not proved, the enquiry report should be rejected. 4. Counsel for the Bank has opposed the aforesaid submission. He states that complaint received about the irregularity made in grant of loan to 25 loanees whose Detail Voucher File was produced 5 during the enquiry proceeding and having examined the Detail Voucher File of each of the 25 loanees, the Enquiry Officer satisfied himself that documentation in the case of each of the 25 loanees was not made in the manner, it is required to be made as per the rules of the Bank. The Enquiry Officer further satisfied himself that the rules of the Bank for ensuring proper supply of the asset created on the basis of the loan granted was also not complied with, as certificate of the officer certifying the delivery on the spot is not available in the D.V. File of the loanees. 5. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the enquiry report as also the impugned order and having considered the fact that petitioner was never proceeded against in his 28 years of service coupled with the fact that from the enquiry report itself, it appears that the concerned Field Officer, Dealer and the Loanees are responsible and the petitioner- Branch Manager is also responsible to some extent and that he has taken steps to recover the asset from the defaulter loanees by 6 lodging First Information Report against four of them, in appreciation of such fact, this Court while maintaining the finding of guilt recorded by Enquiry Officer that petitioner is also responsible to some extent for bad financing, recommend that his punishment be altered from dismissal to compulsory retirement. Appropriate orders in this regard be passed by the competent authority of the Bank, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)