Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, May 24 High Court has refused to entertain the plea of Branch Manager Grameen Bank challenging withholding of 20 percent of his retiral benefits in lieu of granting loan to the consumers without following the guidelines.
The petitioner-Abdul Rashid Regoo was functioning as Branch Manager in the Bank and during his tenure of service advanced loan to borrowers which had gone NPA because of negligence of the Manager who had failed to obtain necessary certificates from the concerned departments while granting to the consumers.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar dismissed the plea of the Manager after recording that the Bank gave an ample opportunity to him to put forth his stand and it is only after taking note of the entire material on record and having regard to the explanation tendered by him, the impugned order was passed.
Justice Kumar said this court cannot sit in appeal over the impugned order passed by the respondent Bank which is nothing but an outcome of disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner. “For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition, the same is, accordingly, dismissed”, Court concluded.
Court clarified that the respondent Bank shall, however, verify the fact as to whether loan of one of the consumers as submitted by the petitioner counsel has been fully adjusted and if it is so adjusted, it shall pass appropriate orders for release of the proportionate amount out of the withheld amount of the petitioner appropriated towards the account of said consumer.
It is after the consumers to whom the erring Manager had given loan without following due procedure and their accounts had gone to NPA, the respondent Bank subjected the erring petitioner to disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the respondent Bank at the time of his superannuation from and only 80% of his retiral benefits were released and 20% thereof was withheld.
Court after having heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, viewed that the respondent Bank having provided an adequate opportunity of being heard to the erring official has passed the impugned order which is perfectly legal and unexceptionable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
A full-fledged departmental enquiry into the charges was conducted in which the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer, on the basis of material on record, held the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The Chairman of the Bank i.e., disciplinary authority considered the enquiry report along with connected documents and while agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, put the petitioner on show cause notice as to why he be not held responsible for the loss caused to the Bank on account of his acts of omission and commission proved during the course of enquiry.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel