Balbir Kaur v. Punjab And Sind Bank And ORS
!"#" $ %% & '
Versus
( '
(
)
*& )% (
) (&
) (&
+ % ,- ./
!
""#$""% & '
(#()"("
*+ , - . /0 / !! /1 1 .
!!
1 " 2
3'() ( ))# ! ' . 1 4 1 5 !, "( ( . 1
! 1 5 !,&& "(
( "( 61/ .
!#* - 2 !0 1 2/7 3'8 91 !0 :*; !
!- !: )6 *
< ! )6 :-9= 08 .
. 1 ! = 0 /1 "(()"( )8/ 9= 0 8 ; ! 0 0
1 > ""( ). /0 . !.
15,&&45,&
!
!! 0 ( (#"("( 1
1 ! 1 0 / 9+ ; .
. "
"("( !! . .0=1 !0
!
/ ! !0 . 9+;
""("( 1 !
!0 > . ! 1
""("( 1
1 (#()"("
.
% !
/ . & !!! .
4 0:"( #1/ :"( #
? ! /1
! 6 2/ 3' *91 !0 :-
! ))@ * < ! ))@:- 1!
/ 0 1 1 !0 / 1 !! . !0
! 4 0:"( #1/ :"( # !! . 1 ' !
0 1 &
2 1 ;!A
@ ! !
/1
!! 3'
! /
! $ . ! !
! 0 ! # & 1 / ./!
! !
% 1 1
1
3' @ ""("( 1 .
(#()"("
1 ! /0 % ! . 4 0:"( #1/ :"( #
3' ! !$ !
! !
/!. 1 3 . 7 ; 1 *&!'- 8 *&!'-, .
?'. $ ' ( "((((( >
>( "( # %@
> ) > (>"( % ( "(((((
* "(( "( # 1 (!- "(( "( #
( (#%( > (>"( % 13 . 7 ; 1 *&!'- 8 *&!'-, . " 1 $ 01 ?! ( "((((( @%
)(""( # %((
" ( ") ""( # ( "((((( #6 ()(>"( #
@ (%6) > (>"( %
13 . 7 ; 1 *&!'- 8 *&!'-, . > '/ $ 5 1' 1 B$ ' ( "((((( #
(>(>"( # ))>
@( ") ""( # 13 . 7 ; 1 *&!'- 8 *&!'-, .
& 1 B$ C 1 C 1 $4 1
1 ( "(((((@("
(@"( #
(@(
%@) >((#"( % 13 . 7 ; 1 *&!'- 8 *&!'-, . @ !1 $
2 . ;
( "(((((@()
)(@"( # (#((
()"
> (>"( % ( "(((((@ % ( (#"( # (>((
6@ > (>"( % 13 . 7 ; 1 *&!'- 8 *&!'-, . # D 1! ; B$
1 5 ( "(((((@#"
(# ("( # )%)
6# "6(""( 13 . 7 ; 1 *&!'- 8 *&!'-, . % $ 1 ( "(((((@@% "
"( # ()(( (6)( > (>"( %
6 0
! 6 ! ))@. /!. "!"# $%& '(%) $ '(%$
%
(1) The competent authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery or acts done fraudulently during the period of his service. Provided that the Board shall be consulted before any final orders are passed.
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of pension drawn by a pensioner shall not be less than the minimum pension payable under these regulations:
Provided also that departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, shall, after the retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceedings under these regulations and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service.
(2) No departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution;
Provided that the disciplinary proceedings so instituted shall be in accordance with the procedure applicable to disciplinary proceedings in relation to the employee during the period of his service.
(3) Where the Competent Authority orders recovery of
pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one,third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of employee;"
) ;! A
*+', . +
<: 0
!11 ! /0 ! 6 !
! <: !
"3. The short issue that arises for consideration in all these petitions is whether departmental proceedings can be initiated against an employee who has retired from the services of the respondent bank when it is in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the institution of the proceedings, in view of Punjab and Sind Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 ('Pension Regulations', for short). Xxx xxx xxx
69. I am not in agreement with the submission made by Ms. Bajaj for the simple reason that the word 'event' as stipulated in Regulation 48 (2) of Pension Regulations has to be seen from the perspective of the charges framed against the petitioners herein. As noted from the charges reproduced above, the subject matter of the same being that the petitioners prior to their retirement and also preceding the period of more than 4 years from the date of issuance of charge sheets have recommended (the dates of sanctioning being February 13, 2012, March 30, 2012 in respect of W.P. (C) 2846/2017; August 29, 2011, September 29, 2011, March 30, 2012 and June 14, 2012 in respect of W.P. (C) 3910/2017; and August 30, 2011, September 29, 2011, April 2, 2012 and June 14, 2012 in respect of W.P.(C) 3915/2017) sanction of cash credit facilities, enhancement of ODP limit and sanction of BG limit.
The accounts of the borrowers becoming NPA are not the subject matter of the allegations in their respective charge sheets. Hence, the facilities/accounts sanctioned by the petitioner may have turned NPAs but since the very subject matter of the charges is with regard to sanction given by the petitioners for such loans, the plea is unsustainable. It can also be said that the facilities/accounts turning NPAs can be because of the borrowers having failed to re,pay the loans/credits availed and such a charge surely cannot be imputed against the petitioners. If that be so, the limitation of four years has to be necessarily seen from the date when the sanction was given by these officers/petitioners for various facilities which resulted in the accounts becoming NPA.
Xxx xxx xxx
75. That apart, I find that the Staff Accountability Reports dated November 28, 2014 (in W.P.(C) 2846/2017), January 29, 2014, February 4, 2014 and February 10, 2014 (in W.P.(C) 3910/217 and W.P. (C) 3915/2017) indicts the petitioners of their misdemeanor. In other words, the misconduct by the petitioners had come to the notice of the respondent Bank in the year 2014 itself. The respondent Bank could have initiated the disciplinary proceedings immediately thereafter to be well within the limitation of 4 years in terms of Regulation 48(2). Any procedure like issuance of show,cause notice to the petitioners seeking their reply and to follow the procedure to declare the A/cs, NPA surely will not extend the limitation nor such a power is contemplated under the Regulation 48(2). Moreover, it is a settled position of law as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Brajendra Singh Yambem (supra) that if the manner of particular act is prescribed under the Statute then the
same must be done in that manner or not at all.
( 3
!0 , ! 2 1 ;!A .!
/
!'
!! 1 E '/ 0 .
!$
/!. "Statement of Allegations Ms. Balbir Kaur (B10420),Ex Officer, while working as Branch In,charge at Nandpur (N0188) Branch under Ludhiana Zone from 07.11.2015 to 21.02.2017, has committed lapses/irregularities in appraising/sanctioning of housing loans, as detail hereunder:
13 . 7 ; 1 *&!'- 8 *&!'-, & .
?'. $ ' ( "((((( >
>( "(
# %@
> ) > (>"(
% ( "(((((
*
"(( "( #1
(!- "(( "(
#
( (#%( > (>"(
% "A. She did not ascertain the genuineness of ITRS, permanent source of Income and repayment capacity of the borrower. Total Income of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh in his ITR for the assessment years 2014,15 and 2013,14 have been shown Rs. 476630/, and Rs. 322170/, but no record have been found with Income Tax Department. Thus, these ITRs are fabricated and fake. The Photocopies of these ITRs were not verified with originals and no proof in conformity with the genuineness of these ITRs was obtained.
B. She did not ensure genuineness of ITRs of the guarantor. Income of Guarantor Mrs. Amarjit Kaur in her ITRs for the assessment years 2014,15 and 2013,14 have been shown Rs. 309840/, and Rs. 284930/, but no record have been found
with Income tax Department. Thus, these ITRs are fabricated and fake. The Photocopies of ITRs were not verified with originals and no proof in conformity with the genuineness of these ITRs was obtained.
C. She failed to ensure the profession of the borrower. As per Credit Report dated 13.01.2016 and 20.01.2016 and also in computation of income with ITRs for the years 2015,16, 2014,15 and 2013,14 of Lakhwinder Singh, income are shown as Business but no proof of business was taken to ensure the profession.
D. She did not ensure the networth of borrower as no supporting documents were obtained in support of networth Rs. 77.40 lakh and 3 properties mentioned in the credit report dated 13.01.2016 and 20.01.2016 of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh.
E. She did not conduct pre sanction visit/physical verification of the property and BM/Acctt., report was also not prepared.
F. She did not make pre sanction visit to the residence of the borrower to gather market Intelligence and genuineness of the borrower before sanctioning of the loan.
G. She disburse the loan of Rs. 4.00 lakh for Renovation of ground floor and construction of first floor and Second Floor within a short period of 28 (Twenty Eight) days without obtaining progress report on different stages of construction/renovation.
H. She failed to conduct post sanction visit. Further Utilization certificate and House completion is also not on Bank's record.
I. She failed to ensure the end use of Bank's fund as detailed hereunder:,
1. There was cost estimate dated 04.04.2016 of Innovative Engineers to Renovate the Ground floor for Rs. 390950/, and construction of first floor for Rs. 170000/, but as per latest valuation report dated 16.06.2019 of M/s Aakar
Architect house is build only upto ground floor. Thus first floor was not constructed.
2. As per old valuation report dated 23.11.2015 of Innovative engineers constructed value of ground floor 474512/, and as per new valuation report dated 16.05.2019 of M/s Aakar Architects constructed value of ground floor is Rs. 452250/,. Thus, no renovation of ground floor was also made. As per latest valuation report Present realizable value of the property is only Rs. 896750/, and total outstanding is Rs. 18.16 Lakh. Thus, huge Bank's funds is in stake."
E 1 ! /, !*"- ! 6 = 1! 1 !0 / .
<:.' !1
0 /
.
! /0 !. 4 0:"( #1/ :"( #
! !. ! 0
!
/ / 0' ! ! !! !0
11 ! 10/ ! 0 10/ @ (0 1
+
<: / !
/ ! 1 & !!
!! !
3'
! !!
!!. 1 /' ! .!
! !
!0
<: !1 1 ! 1 ! & !! .
%! !0 % . ! . 0 1
" &.' 1 /
! !1 1 ! /0 ! 6*"- !
))@ / !!. !0 !!. 1 (#()"("
*+ , -
/0
, ) (& /
">( "("
Ali B
' $ F $ Whether Reportable Yes/No