R P CHHABRA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
LAWS(DLH)-2004-7-16
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
July 05,2004
R.P.CHHABRA
Appellant
VERSUS
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RIDGE V. BALDWIN [REFERRED TO]M.VASUDEVAN PALLAI VS. CITY COUNCIL OF SINGAPORE [REFERRED TO]
KL TRIPATHI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MALOCH V. ABERDEEN CORPN. [REFERRED TO]
BUSHELL V. SECRETARY OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
R V. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT [REFERRED TO]
MEHDAWI V. SECRETARY OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF T.N. V THIRU K.V.PERUMAL [REFERRED TO]
S.L.KAPOOR V. JAGMOHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD NOOH [REFERRED TO]
TIRLOK NATH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. CHINTAMAN SADASHIVA WAISHAMPAYAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. BIDYABHUSHAN MOHAPATRA [REFERRED TO]
JANKINATH SARANGI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA CHANDRA TANDON VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RATTAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. VISHWA MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL VS. A K CHOPRA [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. DEGALA SURYANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MAHESH KUMAR MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
SURAT SINGH VS. S R BAKSHI [REFERRED TO]
SATYAWATI SETHI VS. SUBHASH CHAND [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
JASWINDER SINGH VS. U.T. ADMINISTRATION OF CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2020-5-33] [REFERRED TO]JUDGEMENT
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. -
(1.)Petitioner challenges the order dated 7.3.1988 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment as well as the decision dated 3.1.1989 of the Appellate Authority i.e. the Board of Directors of the respondent bank, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner as communicated to the petitioner under cover of letter dated 13.1.1989.
(2.)Petitioner was posted as Zonal Manager, London of the respondent bank from 12/12/1984 upto end of March, 1985. Pertaining to his functioning as the Zonal Manager, London, under cover of memorandum dated 8.4.1986, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. The said charge-sheet listed the following charges against the petitioner:-
"ARTICLE OF CHARGE AGAINST SHRI R.P. CHHABRA, DY.GENERAL MANAGER, HO NEW DELHI PREV.ZONAL MANAGER, U.K. Shri RP Chhabra while working as Zonal Manager, London committed following irregularities: i) Allowed/sanctioned advances to certain borrowers when the facilities to the group companies accounts of the borrowers were sanctioned by Board. ii) Allowed unauthorised/irregular advances to certain borrowers over and above the limits sanctioned/drawing powers/value of security available in the account. iii) Sanctioned facilities in certain accounts when the group companies accounts were already substantially irregular and doubtful of recovery. iv) Failed to obtain proper documents from the borrowers. v) Failed to obtain proper securities in certain loan accounts. vi) Failed to obtain proper valuation reports on the properties proposed to be mortgaged to the bank. vii) Failed to ensure compliance of bank's procedure with regard to various accounts. viii) Failed to ensure compliance of terms and conditions in certain loan accounts. ix) Allowed utilisation of facilities under lapsed sanction. x) Failed to report unauthorised/irregular advances to HO and obtain confirmation of action. xi) Allowed payment of expenses to the debit of Bank's revenue without obtaining proper sanction. As such, Shri RP Chhabra failed to protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence and committed misconduct in terms of Regulation 3(1) of PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977."
(3.)Since counsel for the petitioner argued at length on the alleged perversity in the findings of the enquiry officer who was appointed to enquire into and submit a report pertaining to the charge-sheet in question, I would be advised to set out, in a little more detail, the statement of imputations in support of the charge-sheet.
(2.)Petitioner was posted as Zonal Manager, London of the respondent bank from 12/12/1984 upto end of March, 1985. Pertaining to his functioning as the Zonal Manager, London, under cover of memorandum dated 8.4.1986, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. The said charge-sheet listed the following charges against the petitioner:-
"ARTICLE OF CHARGE AGAINST SHRI R.P. CHHABRA, DY.GENERAL MANAGER, HO NEW DELHI PREV.ZONAL MANAGER, U.K. Shri RP Chhabra while working as Zonal Manager, London committed following irregularities: i) Allowed/sanctioned advances to certain borrowers when the facilities to the group companies accounts of the borrowers were sanctioned by Board. ii) Allowed unauthorised/irregular advances to certain borrowers over and above the limits sanctioned/drawing powers/value of security available in the account. iii) Sanctioned facilities in certain accounts when the group companies accounts were already substantially irregular and doubtful of recovery. iv) Failed to obtain proper documents from the borrowers. v) Failed to obtain proper securities in certain loan accounts. vi) Failed to obtain proper valuation reports on the properties proposed to be mortgaged to the bank. vii) Failed to ensure compliance of bank's procedure with regard to various accounts. viii) Failed to ensure compliance of terms and conditions in certain loan accounts. ix) Allowed utilisation of facilities under lapsed sanction. x) Failed to report unauthorised/irregular advances to HO and obtain confirmation of action. xi) Allowed payment of expenses to the debit of Bank's revenue without obtaining proper sanction. As such, Shri RP Chhabra failed to protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence and committed misconduct in terms of Regulation 3(1) of PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977."
(3.)Since counsel for the petitioner argued at length on the alleged perversity in the findings of the enquiry officer who was appointed to enquire into and submit a report pertaining to the charge-sheet in question, I would be advised to set out, in a little more detail, the statement of imputations in support of the charge-sheet.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.