Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4967/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4967 of 2008
=========================================
PRAVIN
RATNABHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE CO.AGRI. & RURALDEVELOP.BANK LTD & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MS LILU K BHAYA for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR SP MAJMUDAR for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 17/11/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner, by this petition, has prayed for the relief interalia to
direct the respondent No.1 herein to take the decision in respect to
the irregularities/illegalities committed by the District Manager of
the Bank viz. Shri Haribhai Khimabhai Kavatra (which is wrongly typed
as Karotra) and the Director of Kachchh District Shri Haribhai
Nanjibhai Patel.
2. Heard
Mr. Dagli, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya,
learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.
S.P.Majmudar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 viz. Shri
Haribhai Khimabhai Kavatra (which is wrongly
typed as Karotra).
3. Upon
hearing the learned counsels appearing on both the sides, it appears
that the grievance on the part of the petitioner was that the Branch
Manager of the Bank was compelling the loanee to purchase the
tractors from the agency which was owned by the relatives of the
Branch Manager. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that the
son of the Director Shri Haribhai Nanjibhai Patel was also holding
the agency and same situation continued against the Director if
anybody was desirous to take loan from the Bank. The petitioner also
preferred Special Civil Application before this Court being Special
Civil Application No.19887 of 2007 and this Court (Coram : Hon’ble
Mr. Justice Akshay H. Mehta, J) vide order dated 18.09.2007 had
directed the bank to take action. Since no action was taken, the
present petition.
4. It
also appears from the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the
respondent bank as well as the subsequent development which has
happened thereafter, as per the submissions made at the Bar, that the
respondents Nos.1 and 2 bank has initiated departmental action
against the respondent No.3 in capacity as the Branch Manager of the
bank and such departmental proceedings are pending. However, the
respondent No.3, as per the police investigation, was alleged to have
been found involved in the murder of the father of the petitioner, in
connection of which the criminal case is pending and he was arrested
and he is in custody. On account of the same the respondent No.1 bank
has placed respondent No.3 under suspension. Under these
circumstances, the bank, as such, has already initiated the action of
departmental inquiry as well as of suspension. It appears that the
suspension and arrest of the respondent No.3 is on account of the
criminal proceedings, and therefore, such may continue until the
criminal proceedings are terminated or prior thereto the departmental
inquiry is concluded and the decision of same is against the
respondent No.3. In any case it will be required for the respondent
No.1 to conclude the departmental inquiry in respect to the
allegations made for misusing the position as the Branch Manager. Ms.
Lilu Bhaya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 bank
submitted that the inquiry is likely to take reasonable time, more
particularly when the respondent No.3 is already in jail. Under these
circumstances, the respondent No.1 shall conclude the proceedings of
the departmental inquiry as early as possible preferably within the
period of 6 months from the receipt of the order of this Court unless
the availability of the respondent No.3 is not possible on account of
he being in the jail.
5. So
far as the action against the Director Shri Haribhai Nanjibhai Patel
is concerned, as per the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the
bank, nothing has been found against Shri Haribhai Nanjibhai Patel.
The petitioner has not even joined said Shri Haribhai Nanjibhai Patel
as party in the proceedings. No authenticated document is produced on
record to show the relationship of Bharatbhai Haribhai Patel with
Haribhai Nanjibhai Patel and also to show that whether the Director
Haribhai Nanjibhai Patel has played any role in getting the purchase
of the Tractors by the loanee or not. Therefore, if the petitioner
has any authenticated material for such purpose, the petitioner may
move to the respondent No.1 bank by production of the documentary
evidence showing the involvement of Haribhai Nanjibhai Pate for the
disqualification, if any, is to be considered as per the bye laws of
the bank. If such an application is made, the bank shall examine the
same after giving opportunity of hearing to the Haribhai Nanjibhai
Patel, who is the Director of the bank and shall take proper decision
preferably within a period of 3 months from preferring of any such
application by the petitioner.
6. In
view of the aforesaid, no further order deserves to be passed. Hence,
the petition is disposed of accordingly.
7. It
is observed that during the course of the inquiry, and if the
decision is taken by the respondent No.1 bank either against the
respondent No.3 in capacity as the Branch Manager or against the
Haribhai Nanjibhai Patel in capacity as the Director, the rights and
contentions of such affected party shall also remain open in the
appropriate proceedings.
[JAYANT
PATEL, J.]
jani
Top