Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.1355 OF 2012(S-DIS) BETWEEN:
BHAGAVANT BEDI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS FORMER BRANCH MANAGER OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA KEREKALMATTI PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF NO.14 OM NILAYA, 1ST CROSS NAGASHETTIHALLI BENGALURU-560 094.
(BY SRI. B S MURALI, ADVOCATE) ….APPELLANT AND:
1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE / HEAD OFFICE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MD CHANDERMUKHI, NARIMANPOINT MUMBAI-400 021 STATE MAHARASHTRA.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER / Z M CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE BANK STREET, KOTI, HYDERABAD-500 095, A P.
3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER / R M CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE P.B. 5129, CRESCENT ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE ASHWAMEDHA TRADE CENTER, DAJIBANPETH, HUBLI-580 028 STATE KARNATAKA.
5. MR. NAGARAJ SENIOR MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE BANK STREET, KOTI HYDERABAD-500 095, A P 6. MR N SREENIVASA RAO BRANCH MANAGER, (FORMERLY BRANCH MANAGER OF SHESHADRI ROAD) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, H.NO.4-43, BANDI ATMAKUR TALUK NANDYAL DISTRICT KURNOOL (AP)-518 523 ….RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SNEHA BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR M/S SUNDARASWAMY AND RAMDAS, ADVOCATES FOR R-1 TO R-6) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.4640 OF 2008 (S-DIS) DATED 06.02.2012.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.10.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 6.2.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4640 of 2008, dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the writ appeal.
2. Parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are :
The petitioner was serving as a Branch Manager at Sheshadripuram Road Gandhinagar Branch of the respondent-Bank. He was served with a memo dt.8.2.2005 made in R.O:PRS: 2004-05:2048 alleging certain omissions and commissions purportedly committed by the petitioner. In pursuance of the service of notice, reply was given by the petitioner on 8.4.2005. The said memo refers to three charges pertaining to Malleshwaram branch wherein the petitioner was in service of the respondent bank. The petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges dt.30.8.2005 made in R.O:HRD:DAD:2005-06/1062 and was also informed that it is proposed to hold a departmental enquiry against him in respect of 5 imputations of misconduct levelled against him while working as a Branch Manager at Malleshwaram branch Bengaluru. That out 5 charges , three charges are purportedly committed while the petitioner was at Malleshwaram branch and the other two refers to his personal accounts. Subsequent to the imputations of the aforesaid charges an addendum was served adding three more charge in respect of the alleged lapses committed by the petitioner pertaining to the Sheshadripuram road branch. Subsequent corrigendum was also served on the petitioner making amendments to the earlier charges. Five charges levelled against the petitioner which constitute misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1), Regulation 15 read with Regulation 24 of the Central Bank of India, Officers Employees conduct Regulations 1976 attracting penalty under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees, (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations 1976 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’). That the departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner from 6.2.2006 to 15.6.2006 and the summary of the finding is that out of eight charges, 7 charges were purported to be proved and charge No.6 is partly proved. Copy of the finding dated 24.7.2006 of the enquiry officer was communicated to the petitioner vide letter by Bangalore Regional Office of the respondent-bank. After the receipt of the report from the enquiry authority, the disciplinary authority, after evaluation of the reply of the petitioner dated 16.08.2006 vide order dated 09.09.2006 has awarded a consolidated punishment to the petitioner of “removal from service, which shall not be disqualified for future employment as per Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations.” The respondent-bank in pursuance to the order passed by the disciplinary authority, issued an administrative order dated 22.09.2006 communicating the order. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of penalty preferred an appeal under Regulation 17 of the Regulations before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after considering the documents and the evidence placed on record, has confirmed the order of penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 9.3.2007. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of penalty and order of the Appellate Authority, preferred Writ Petition 4640 of 2008. The learned Single Judge after considering the entire material on record dismissed the writ petition and directed the respondent-bank to take immediate steps to settle the terminal benefits, without driving the petitioner for another litigation.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single judge dated 6.2.2012 passed in W.P.No.4640 of 2008, has filed this appeal.
4. Heard arguments of learned counsels.
are :
5. That the charges levelled against the petitioner Charge-I That, the 1st among the 8 charges leveled against the petitioner is that, the petitioner has grossly violated the group concept of lending while sanctioning 39 Centbuy loans, aggregating to Rs. 20.11 lakhs to the teachers of M/s Good luck Educational Society, transgressing the powers delegated to him, by accepting mutual guarantees amongst the beneficiaries of the loan, when the petitioner was manager at Malleshwaram branch. It is alleged that, 1) The petitioner did not properly verify the relevant documents and did not exercise the necessary precaution, such as genuineness of salary certificates and whether they were permanent employees or not.
2) That, enquiry as to the status of the Society from previous bankers was not made.
3) Valuation certificate was not obtained from approved valuer on the mortgaged property.
4) Not covered account no. 38/134 and 38/148 to 38/153 by the personal guarantee of Mrs. Lalitha, even though mortgage is created for all loans.
5) Discrete enquiries were not made about the prospective borrowers before sanctioning the loans.
6) Not conducted pre-sanction and post- sanction inspections.
7) That, out of 39 loanees, 11 are purported to be working in ‘Modern Karnataka Higher Primary School, which is a non-existent, and the petitioner is alleged to have connived with the authority of Good Luck Educational Society in defrauding the bank.
Charge-II Mr. B.G.Bedi has sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.7.50 lakhs to Mr. D.Murgesh and Mrs. Lalitha without properly verifying the documents such as plan approved by B.M.C. without preparing the Financial Reports properly and without completing the Equitable Mortgage Procedures properly and accommodated a financial dealing between the vendor Mrs. Rukmini and the borrowers. Housing Loan has become N.P.A.
Charge-III Mr. B.G Bedi has violated stipulated norms and without any delegated power sanctioned a demand loan of Rs.4,55,000/- to M/S Goodluck Education Society against MMDC 39/255 for Rs.5,00,000/-. He has sanctioned the loan:
1) Even though the deposit was already under Bank’s lien for terms loans.
2) Without obtaining the Original deposit receipt which is duly discharged and lien marked.
3) Without powers delegated with him for allowing loan against Deposit receipt which is reportedly lost.
Charge-IV Mr.B.G.Bedi has financial dealings which is disproportionate to his known source of income.
Charge No.V Mr.B.G.Bedi has borrowed from other Financial Institutions such as (i) Kaveri House. Finance (ii) Home Finance and (iii) Citibank without obtaining prior permission from the Competent Authority.
Charge-VI
perpetrated against the Bank through a Housing Loan sanctioned to them. Mr. Bedi committed several lapses as detailed in statement of imputation not misconduct (Annexur-II) to facilitate the parties to fraudulently avail Rs.12,00,000/- loan from the Bank.
Charge-VII Mr. B.G. Bedi sanctioned a Housing Loan of Rs.15.00 lakhs to Mr.Mallikarjun Patil and Mrs. Shantha Huggi even though he had delegate powers vested with him. He committed various lapses as listed in the statement of imputation of misconduct. He has failed to take all steps to protect and safeguard the Bank’s interest and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer.
Charge-VIII Mr. B.G.Bedi has sanctioned, without any delegated powers, a loan of Rs.2.00 lakhs to one Dr.P.Viswanath for purchase of equipments/machinery for his clinic. Now both the borrower and the supplier are absconding and the loan has become NPA. Mr. B.G.Bedi has also failed to take all steps to protect and safeguard the interest of the Bank. He with a view to favour the borrower acted detrimental to the interest of the Bank and exposed the Bank funds
6. The enquiry officer after recording the evidence and after considering the documents produced by both the parties has given a finding that charge Nos.1,2,3,4,5,7 & 8 are proved. So far as charge No.6 is concerned, it is partially proved and he has also opined that based on gravity of proven charges and the malicious intention on the part of the CSO in sanctioning the loans likelihood to cause financial loss to the bank and track record of the chargesheeted officer, he has proposed the punishment of “removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment as per Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations”. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the report of the enquiry officer and after re-appreciating the material on record has passed an order of penalty against the petitioner that is, “removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment as per Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations.”. The Appellate Authority has also confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority and held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and upheld the findings and punishment awarded to him by the Disciplinary Authority of the acts of misconduct and accordingly disposed of the appeal on 6.11.2006.
7. The petitioner has advanced loan to Mrs.Lalitha for herself, husband and guaranteed the loan of 30 employees but failed to remit the loan instalments as per the undertaking given by Goodluck Education Society; he has also sanctioned loan against deposit which was already under lien; he has not obtained original receipt; he has sanctioned loan without obtaining original receipts, without delegating powers to sanction loan against a lost deposit receipt etc.
8. Thus the action of the petitioner amounts to misconduct. The petitioner acted detrimental to the interest of the Bank with a view to favour a borrower (by not properly processing the proposal) and exposed the banks funds of the financial risks and alleged siphoning of bank loan (by allowing the borrower to misutilise the loans). That the allegations made against him are established. That every officer or employee of the Bank requires to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with atmost integrity, honesty devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. It requires that an officer /employee to maintain a good conduct and discipline and to act in his best judgment in performance of his official duties or in exercise of the powers conferred on him. If such officer or employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation /bank will disappear, the functioning of the bank would become chaotic and manageable. Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesses. No organisation, more particularly, Bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the ground that it was actuated by ulterior motive or extraneous consideration. The very act of acting beyond the authority, that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period, is by itself a misconduct. Acting beyond ones authority is by itself breach of discipline and breach of regulations.
9. In the present case, the petitioner/appellant has acted beyond his authority. The position held by the petitioner is one of faith and trust. The petitioner holds a post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service. The petitioner’s conduct in exercising his powers beyond the authority while advancing a loan to Mrs.Lalitha, her husband and 30 other employees is in violation of Regulations of the Bank.
10. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. BELABAGCHI AND OTHERS reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 940 2005 SC L&S 940, a bank officer is required to exercise high standard of honesty and integrity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment has held as follows :
“15. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Parnaik3, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit which resulted in the case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance.”
From the afore said judgment, it is also clear that the charges levelled against the employee were not casual in nature but were serious. That being so, the plea of the petitioner about absence of loss is without substance.
11. Further, the conduct of the petitioner in committing breach of trust and also breach of Regulations of the respondent- Bank, does not deserve any sympathy. He has failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity honesty and devotion.
12. The contention of the petitioner with regard to denial of verification of certain documents furnished to him has been discussed by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 4 of the impugned order :-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contends that in the enquiry proceedings the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to permit him to verify the copies of the documents furnished to him with the originals and the same was denied to him. As such the enquiry proceedings are bad in law. I decline to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the record that in the enquiry proceedings the petitioner admits that he has received copies of all documents relied on by the respondent Bank. The petitioner wanted to verify the copies of the plaint, loan applications and letter of guarantors with the originals . It is seen from the record that the respondent – Bank has produced the certified copies of the plaint, loan applications and letter of guarantors in the enquiry proceedings. The copies of these certified copies were furnished to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the copies of the documents furnished to him are entirely different from the originals. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that copies supplied to the petitioner tallies with the certified copies produced by the respondent – Bank in the enquiry proceedings. The certified copies are obtained from the Civil Court in the civil suits filed by the respondent bank against the borrowers where the originals were produced. In the circumstances the Enquiry Officer rightly held that there is no necessity to compare the copies of the documents supplied to the petitioner with the originals. In the facts and circumstances of this case this is not a ground on which the enquiry proceedings are to be vitiated.”
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS -v- P. GUNASEKARAN reported in (2015)2 Supreme Court Cases 610 at paragraph 12 has held that the High Court in exercise of the power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence.
“12. Despite the well settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal.
The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) The enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) The enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c)There is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) The authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) The authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) The conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) The disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) The disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) The finding of fact is based on no evidence.
14. The petitioner has not pointed out any violation of above said norms.
15. As stated above, the enquiry officer has provided an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant to put forth his defence and also permitted his representative by name Subramani and he has defended the petitioner. Further the petitioner also admits during the cross examination that he has already received the charge sheet comprising the memo, articles of charge, statement of imputation of misconduct, list of documents and witnesses.
16. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS NARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY (2013) 2 SCC 740 has held as follows :
“20. xxxx. “We may point out that the charge-sheet need not contain the details of the documents or the names of the witnesses proposed to be examined to prove the charges or a list to that effect unless there is a specific provision to that effect. Charge-sheet, in other words, is not expected to be a record of evidence. Fair procedure does not mean giving of copies of the documents or list of witnesses along with the charge-sheet. Of course, statement of allegations has to accompany the charge-sheet, when required by the Service Rules.”
17. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the entire material on record and the report of the enquiry officer has rightly passed the order of penalty and it was confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge.
Hence, we pass the following :
Order The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Next >