The Mahkamah rejected a writ petition challenging the reduction in rank of a bank manager. The Court held there was no error warranting interference as findings by two authorities were supported by documentary evidence regarding serious irregularities in loan sanctioning and recovery.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI
WRIT PETITION NO.34853/2011(S-RES)
BETWEEN :
M S NAGARAJA AGED 56 YEARS S/O M V SADANANDA MURTHY MANAGER,CANARA BANK BS & IC SECTION CIRCLE OFFICE, BANGALORE -560 001
...PETITIONER
( BY SRI. K HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADV., )
AND :
BANGALORE - 560 002 ...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI.P.UDAYASHANKAR RAI, ADV.)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDINGS AS CONTAINED UNDER ANNEXURE-E, AS ALSO THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS CONTAINED UNDER ANNEXURE-G, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Petitioner has called in question the order of punishment passed
by the second respondent dated 25.11.2010 produced at Annexure-E,
confirmed by the first respondent – Appellate Authority dated 4.6.2011 produced at Annexure-G and for consequential benefits.
Bank. He was in charge of Iragampally Branch. In a regular investigation, the Investigating Officer observes several serious irregularities in sanctioning and monitoring the loans. Investigation report reveals that, the sanction of loans to the irrigated crops, though the lands were dry lands, loans were granted beyond command area of the Branch without even prior permission from the Regional Officer
and contrary to the guidelines; improper assessment of scale of
3
finance; leading to excess finance in few cases; non-stipulation of required margin; non-conducting of pre/post sanction inspection; Horticulture loans were sanctioned to borrowers, who have not even undertaken the activities like plantation, construction of labour quarters; entertaining outsiders in the preparation of loan documents and allowing them to collect the charges against the procedure on defective and fake documents; sanctioning loan to a dead person; engaging the same lawyer in 132 cases as against total number of 221 cases; non-observing of the risk factor cases and non-recovery, etc.,.
4
interalia holding that the charges alleged against the petitioner are proved.
petitioner submitted that, in response to the Article of Charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Article of Charges is vague and general in nature. No specific instances of any misconduct is alleged,
5
even if there is any procedural irregularities, it has not resulted in financial loss. He further submitted that, no allegations are proved by the Bank except making vague general observations. There is no reference to individual transactions as to how the conduct of the petitioner as a Manager would amount to misconduct. He further submitted that, even the Appellate Authority, which is required to consider the appeal on merit, by reiterating the reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority has dismissed the appeal and submitted that the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are liable to be quashed.
6
fake documents. Considering the nature of allegations reported by the Investigating Officer, Article of Charges was served. Bank in order to prove, apart from examining the concerned Officers of the Bank has produced individual transactions and proved the charges alleged against the petitioner. Even the Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration the grounds of the appeal and has confirmed the order of Disciplinary Authority. The entire case is based on finding on fact, as such, no legal grounds are made out to interfere with the same.
7
M.Ex.411. In respect of various schemes for agricultural loan without assessing the work capital, without assessing the sanctioning limit, the petitioner has sanctioned the loans, which is also evident from the documentary evidence produced by the Bank. As per M.Exs.228 to 239, there are several discrepancies in the sanction of loans. No specific communication was issued from the Bank in respect of recovery and the interest on the loan. Without even verifying the original sale deed and the documents, loans were advanced. In respect of one Nagulappa, loan was sanctioned on 20th February 2008. It was closed on 30th March 2009 after knowing that the loan was sanctioned wrongly as the borrower had made a complaint. It is also noticed that on a fake pahani, loan was sanction to the person, who was not holding the land. It was also noticed that, in respect of one Ramanna, loan was sanctioned without even verifying that there was already a charge created on the said property. 7 loans were sanctioned on the basis of certified copies of the documents. However, no corresponding documents were either produced or sealed, in turn, one Shiva Reddy was acting as a middleman and suddenly his transaction
8
got increased, he was also a borrower. One Konda Reddy had borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- and when there was outstanding of Rs.4,60,000/-, he had not made any repayment whereas, his wife's account showed huge cash remittances to the tune of Rs.24 lakhs. But the petitioner did not take any steps to recover the loan outstanding in the name of Konda Reddy and most of the loans were not recovered on the ground that the borrowers were promised that, they need not pay the loan as the loan will be waived. In view of these documents, both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority found that the charges alleged against the petitioner are serious and the documentary evidence produced by the Bank categorically prove the charges beyond doubt.
9
documentary evidence, it has been proved that the petitioner has committed a misconduct in many ways.
Accordingly, the petition fails and same is dismissed.
KNM/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the order of punishment involving reduction in rank is maintainable.
Whether the punishment imposed for serious irregularities in loan sanctioning was disproportionate.
Whether the findings and procedural aspects were legally sustainable warranting interference by the Court.
M S Nagaraja
The Executive Director Canara Bank
The General Manager Canara Bank
Subhash B Adi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
