Bank officer acquitted as there wasn’t a joint probe

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The order against a senior officer of the Canara Bank who was awarded punishment for a reduction in grade and basic pay has been quashed by a division bench of the High Court of Karnataka.

The High Court said that as per the Canara Bank Officers, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976, a joint enquiry should have been conducted against all the seven accused. The bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil in their judgment said, “The appellant had not individually sanctioned any loan. The appellant as well as six other officers were involved in the same transactions, though their role was different.

Therefore, in view of the mandate contained in Regulation 10 of the Regulations, the authority ought to have directed a common enquiry. Therefore, the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the appellant is vitiated in law as the same was initiated in violation of Regulation 10 of the Regulations.”

Prem Latha Uppal was a senior manager in the Diplomatic Enclave Branch, New Delhi between 2000 and 2004. She was one of the three members in the Credit Sanction Committee. The Committee sanctioned an open cash credit limit of Rs.50 lakhs to Ms Aman T rading Company in 2001 based on collateral security valued at Rs.107 lakhs. In 2003, the vigilance investigation found that the company had availed the credit based on forged title deeds of properties. A CBI enquiry absolved Prem Latha Uppal in 2003.

A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against Uppal in 2005 after she had been promoted in the meantime. In 2006 the enquiry officer submitted a report stating that the charges leveled against her were proved. The punishment was ordered on her the same year. She challenged this in the HC, where a single judge bench in 2013 held the order of the enquiry to be correct.

Uppal had meantime in 2010 retired from service. She filed an appeal before the division bench of the HC which gave its judgment recently. Apart from holding that the order was wrong as it did not follow the Regulations, the division bench also said that the enquiry was also vitiated.

The bench said, “From perusal of the record, it is evident that the aforesaid witnesses were not examined as witnesses in the enquiry. However, their statements have been relied upon by the enquiry officer in its report while recording a finding that charges leveled against the appellant are partly proved. Thus, the enquiry officer relied upon a material in respect of which no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to rebut the same. Therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are vitiated.”

The HC also said that fresh enquiry against the officer was not allowed. It said, “Ordinarily we would have granted the liberty to the bank to proceed against the appellant afresh. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, we refrain from doing so for more than one reason. Firstly, it will have an impact on other officers of the bank who are not before us.

Secondly, in view of the stand taken by the bank itself, no criminal connivance on the part of the appellant was found by the bank. Thirdly, the appellant was subsequently promoted on 19.07.2004 and lastly, for the reason that the appellant has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.11.2020. For the aforementioned reasons, we are not inclined to grant the liberty to the bank to proceed afresh against the appellant.”