Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29926 of 2013 Petitioner :- Dr. Ajit Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sumit Kakkar
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Sumit Kakkar, Advocate, for respondents.
2. The writ petition is directed against the order of punishment dated 15.09.2010 passed by Chairman, Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank imposing punishment of reduction in the pay scale by five stages and appellate order dated 25.02.2013 rejecting petitioner's appeal.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there are six charges levelled against petitioner and all the charges are vague. Bank has not suffered any loss, still major penalty has been imposed upon petitioner and, therefore, punishment order is liable to be set aside.
4. However, we find no substance in the argument. Charges are very categorical and specific. We find that substance of charges constituting misconduct has not been denied by petitioner in his reply dated 26.11.2009 and instead it has simply explained that whatever was done by him was in interest of Bank. Charge no. 1 alleges that petitioner exceeded his limit of sanctioned loan and thereby sanctioned loan to 22 beneficiaries. Charge no. 2 states that petitioner exceeded his jurisdiction by permitting overdraft and allowed several beneficiaries to withdraw money beyond sanction of amount of loan. Charge no. 3 alleges that petitioner issued Kisan Credit Card taking security of land, which was not mortgageable and in this regard specific adverse report was submitted by Advocate concerned that land was not mortgageable. Charge no. 4 relates to non proper maintenance of grant received from U.P. Anusuchit Jati Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam, Chitrakoot in accordance with the direction of Bank and it was deposited in a saving bank account. Charge no. 5 relates to loan proposals which were not approved by Branch Manager. Charge no. 6 relates to approval of certain loan proposals by petitioner purporting to be Branch Manager though he was only discharging duties of Manager.
5. Reply dated 26.11.2009 was submitted by petitioner to all the aforesaid charges and in respect to charges no. 1 and 2, he did not dispute that he has exceeded his limit but said that most accounts have been closed and there is no loss to Bank. In respect to charge no. 3 he said that Kisan Credit Card was issued to concerned person in the interest of Bank. Similarly, in respect to charge no. 4 he said that amount was not misused and in respect to charges no. 5 and 6 he said that proposals were approved by Manager and he has communicated proposals as per direction of Branch Manager, though concerned Manager was not produced to support the aforesaid defence. Enquiry Officer found all the charges proved and thereafter punishment has been imposed. Contention of petitioner that charges are vague, therefore, is clearly incorrect and contrary to record. The charges are absolutely clear and whatever we have mentioned above, having been found proved, it cannot be said that no allegation of misconduct were found proved.
6. Moreover, despite repeated query, learned counsel for petitioner could not advance any argument showing any illegality or infirmity in the decision making process. In these circumstances, we find no merits in the writ petition.
7. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 PS