01Facts
The petitioner, a Junior Management Grade-I Officer at Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, was serving as Branch Manager at the Bithauli Branch.
p. 2Following his transfer, an internal investigation by Goutam Govind revealed irregularities in 44 Joint Liability Kisan Credit Card (JLKCC) loan accounts.
p. 5A departmental inquiry was initiated based on charges that the petitioner sanctioned and disbursed loans to fake borrowers using tampered Voter ID cards and failing to conduct pre-sanction verifications.
p. 3, 16The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved.
p. 4Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal on 23.10.2019, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority on 04.01.2020.
p. 4The petitioner challenged these orders via the present writ petition, alleging procedural defects and lack of evidence.
p. 602Issues
i.1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to the absence of a list of witnesses and documents in the charge memo.
p. 18 / para. 23ii.2. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on "no evidence" or resulted in a violation of the principles of natural justice.
p. 7 / para. 6iii.3. Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
p. 27 / para. 3403Law Applied
The Court applied Regulations 18, 20, and 39 of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers Employees) Service Regulation, 2010, which govern misconduct and major penalties including dismissal.
p. 3, 15It relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, establishing that judicial review is restricted to the manner of decision-making rather than the correctness of the conclusion.
p. 13The court cited Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank regarding the necessity of proving document contents through oral evidence.
p. 18It relied on State Bank of India v. Bela Bagchi, which mandates a higher standard of honesty and integrity for bank officers.
p. 25It further noted Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman, holding that undisputed documentary evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt.
p. 2104Reasoning
The Court observed that while the charge sheet lacked a formal list of witnesses, the petitioner was provided all 44 loan files and relevant documents during the 10 sittings of the inquiry.
pp. 20-22The Management produced the investigating officer, Goutam Govind, who proved the tampered Voter ID cards (KYC) and the non-existence of borrowers, and was duly cross-examined by the petitioner.
pp. 21-22The court found that the petitioner’s own defense witnesses could not identify the borrowers when shown their photographs, corroborating the "fake borrower" charge.
p. 23The court rejected the plea of "no loss to the bank," reasoning that the creation of fake accounts inherently deprived the bank of any legal mechanism for recovery.
pp. 28-29It concluded that procedural requirements under Regulation 39 were substantially met as the petitioner had a fair opportunity to defend himself.
p. 2405Holding
The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the absence of a witness list in the memo did not prejudice the petitioner since oral and documentary evidence were produced during the inquiry.
p. 20The Court affirmed that a bank officer's fraudulent act constitutes "institutional corruption".
p. 28The High Court declined to interfere with the proportionality of the punishment, stating that the dismissal of a bank officer for sanctioning 44 fake loans does not shock the conscience of the Court.
p. 28The writ petition was dismissed.
p. 29Original Court PDF
Vinay VermavsUttar Bihar Gramin Bank
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
