IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25"?" DAY OF OCTOBER, 200$
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.COpAL.A'GAvOLWDA.: " 2
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUS*rICE I3'."v,_NAOAT<ATjI~I:NA
WRIT APPEAL NO.5'9"7z::./20O9(S--'I?._E;S1
BETWEEN:
P G NAYAK S/O SURENDRIN N'AY'A.I_< Aw
AGED ABOUT 58 ITEARS; .
SUB-MANAC:ER.,- SYNDICAT:E BANK",
[COMPULSORILY E?...;!:)_'fI}2,ED) = * A
PRESENTLYR,/A NO'€,A5, "B"_ CROSS
ABBAIAH NAGAR, KAGGADPISAPURA
BANGALORE. 5'6oQ9:3;~. __
...APPELLANT
A. {By._S}fi: OANCI ADV.)
3 SYNDICATE BANK
A A BODY CONSTITUTED UNTDER
' .fTHE'BANKING COMPANIES
T '(ACQUISITION & TRANSFER OF
_V QUNZDERTAKINGS} ACT, 1970
I BY GENERAL MANAGER (P)
'' HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL 576119
'. UDUPI DISTRICT
RESPONDENT
[By Sri: M/ S SUNDARASVVAMY & RAMDAS, ADV.)
3. We have heard Sri.G.Gangireddy, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri.S.Ramdas learned senior counserlillfor
M/ s. Sundaraswamy 8: Ramdas, Advocate?”for’;-I _
respondents.
4. It is contended on behalf of the”a_ppellant’
several charges were framed against the respect
of these charges, there loss to the
bank. There were certain” which
were not appai’entljr* vva.ppellant and in the
absence of to the bank the
award is a major penalty is
He further submits that
the enquirydwasv also Vi-tiated in as much as the documents
g_vreq1.1:e5s.tedp’for by Altheappellant were not furnished and that
there-.was_lViolation of principles of natural justice and this is
a 1’it.caseVWl’.ierep1’the award of punishment has to be set aside.
_pe19 contra, learned counsel supporting the decision of
— the ‘disciplinary authority as well as the learned single Judge
” has submitted that the charges against the ofiicer were with
regard to not obtaining sanction for the disbursement of loan
and several other procedural irregularities, as a result of
93:.
issues except for one issue the Enquiry Officer recorded a
finding, that the charges levelled against the oraee1:’i~l_:l
respect of twelve issues had been proved.
‘7. As far as the non–furnishing_ of:-..thfe ‘deeen;e’ntgi§§_ae.ee7
concerned though fifteen docurrientsdgvlere _:§the
appellant, five documents wereV’Vl’fitrr1i.shed learned
single Judge has givenfla that the
documents which were appellant by the
Enquiry Officer;irrelevant;to'”the”:charl§es framed against
the appellantilarildi essential to determine
the disputsfi , thelllapplication made by the
of documents and apart from
the five documents ‘which’~~–itrere ordered to be furnished to
~'”~._the the «««« —other documents related to the
l.’–..Aperl.”orl?nance”the petitioner as a Branch Manager which
.are.i1″l=’nolvxtlgrlilconcemed with the charges framed by the
‘ Vbank: ,
The learned single Judge has also recorded that the
‘vfilcloncluct of the Enquiry Ofiicer was in accordance with the
it rules of natural justice and that the same cannot be faulted
with. As far as the nature of the penalty imposed is
9»
I
concerned, it is seen that the disciplinary authority imposed
a penalty of compulsory retirement, which was by
the appellate authority. The learned single _
regard to the fact that there were as
accounts amounting to Rs. 36.56 iwerel
without following proper procedure or yerificati’oi*J
that the appellant had exceededVl’i’his authoiityi sanctioning
the said loans althougliilie powered to do so,
It has also been noted Judge that
certain loans}, taking collateral
security of exposing funds of the
bank totvthe lalthough there has been
no actual by the appellant, but
considenngl;”t.he’ fact AAt}_ia’t~*;the appellant was dealing with
= fiinds_, he was-duty bound to take all care and caution
While .di’sbursing—-loans to customers of the respondent/ bank.
‘p9. it .. ‘Considering the total number of loan accounts in
llfrespecpt which the appellant had not followed proper and
— requisite procedure, we are of the view that the learned
” “single Judge was justified in not interfering with the penalty
A imposed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the
la
/1.
appellate authority and we find no good ground to take
contrary View in the matter.
10. For the aforesaid reasons we find that .appeal
devoid of merit and is accordingly ciiéirlisseci. . V
xJUDGE”
gg;EggéJr $&]_
r re°r :UoeE