PNB CVOPNB HEAD OFFICE NEWDELHI - SH.SHIV KUMAR GUPTA CVO PNB NEWDELHI
Contact Complainant     27137 Views     Report Spam  
Complaint by: baldev on March 4, 2013, 9:22 pm in Banking and Finance

To
SH.SHIV KUMAR GUPTA
CVO
HEAD OFFICE PNB
NEW DELHI
Dated – 05 March 2013
SUBJECT:
1) INQUIRY REGARDING DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS MORE THAN THEIR INCOME SOURCES i.e SALARIES OS SH.M.S.NIJJAR(AGM) AND SH ROMESH LAL BAJAJ CHIEF MANAGER (BOTH RETIRED),SH. CHANDER SHEKAR GAUTM MANAGER HRD,SH. V.K KHURANA CJIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL CIRCLE OFFICE (HOSHIARPUR) PUNJAB.
2) SH.G.S.DUBEY AND SH. N.K NIRANWAL BOTH RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER, PNB HEAD OFFICE NEW DELHI. SIR,
1) The enquiry entrusted by CVC, CBI to CVO and other authorities to CMD Punjab national bank New Delhi is down marked to the officers of PNB. These officers generally give protection to their subordinate officers by manipulating the records. Enquiry into the transfers, promotions and loans sanctioned may kindly be enquired into to know the irregularities committed by these officers. It must be brought to notice, how many loans have become NPA and how much financial loss has been done to PNB by these offices. The enquiry into these matters may be entrusted to the officers other than PNB officers.
2) IT IS requested that CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION HAS DIRECTES OR ADVISED YOU to make an independent enquiries into disproportionate assets of above mentioned dishonest officers .CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION GOVT.OF INDIA NEWDELHI has asked you to make independent enquiries in complaints numbers 27210/2012/Vigilance 3/19420 dated on 19/11/2012 , 24570,23205,194983/2012 Vigilance 3 dated on 23/11/2012,31593/2012/Vigilance 3 /198408 dated in 27/12/2012,17170/2012/Vigilance 3 /185839 dated on 31/08/2012,29289/2012/vigilance 3 /197228 dated on 17/12/2012,Conf/CFM/553/12/192442 DATED ON 26/10/2012 , 1204/BNK/39/193717 dated on 09/11/2012,29291/2012/Vigilance 3/197227 dated 17/12/2012,30939/2012/Vigilance 3 / 198543 dated on 01/01/2013,32530/2010/Vigilance 3/199419 dated on 09/01/2013 of CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION GOVT.OF INDIA NEWDELHI . ALL those dishonest officers sanctioned loans to borrowers, consumers, customers after making BRIBE while posted in different branches. BUT NO impartial enquiry has so far been conducted into THE MISDEEDS of those dishonest officers. 3)IT is requested to verify the assets i.e. RESIDENTIALS AND SHOPS/ commercials made by these dishonest officers after their physical verification on their place of residence.
4)Enquiry officers submit their wrong and fabricated report while sitting in their offices not visit the residence of dishonest officers. 5)BECAUSE NO impartial enquiry these dishonest officers do not get due punishment.. 6)IT IS submitted that central vigilance officer’s PNB is being appointed by CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI. CVO IS WORKING IN PNB BUT CVO YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE PNB OFFICERS OR MANAGEMENT. YOU are an independent AUTHORITY. IT is requested that an impartial enquiry should conducted by verifying the physical assets as well as their FDRS IN DIFFERENT BRANCHES,PNB COINS,PLEASE BROUGHT TO BOOK THESE DISHONEST PNB OFFICERS. 7)IT IS REQUESTED NOT TO DO UNDUE HELP of these dishonest officers. THE officers who help these dishonest OFFICERS should also be brought to BOOK .IF CVO CANNOT conduct an independent enquiry then should inform the CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION GOVT.OF INDIA NEWDELHI can conduct an independent enquiry at its own leve and officers of Central Vigilance Commission New Delhi.
Yours Faithfully
Baldev Raj Mahi
S/o Sh .Ram Asra
Nawashahahr (Punjab)
Baba Deep Singh Nagar Saloh Road
Backside K.C.Palace
Distt:Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar
Phone No.9501302675
Email – baldevmahi41@gmail.com

Complainant's Goal: 2) SH.G.S.DUBEY AND SH. N.K NIRANWAL BOTH RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER, PNB HEAD OFFI
Complainant's Target: PNB CVOPNB HEAD OFFICE NEWDELHI
Complaint Location: IndiaPunjabShahid Bhagat Singh Nagar

Would you like to Comment on this Complaint?
Security Code
By clicking "Post Comment" button, you agree to our Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Recent Comments
11.
last week  AmandaJoypE

Hello, you used to write magnificent, but the last several posts have been kinda boring I miss your great writings. Past few posts are just a little bit out of track! come on!

10.
last week  Heidicramp

examples of resume with no experience


http://brainfish.us

9.
Mon, 16 Jun 2014  Pawan Kumar Rai

pensan problem

8.
Sun, 10 Nov 2013  Dr Ravinder Kumar Sharma(RA-UNCODE)

Solomon Post
British International Dispatch Service in association with INDO-US space cooperation Washington DC USA
I draw your attention toward my complaint against your bank and bank official at lift Road Shimla where my account no is
3383000100145213 My complaint was addressed to Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank of India and Indian Banking Association
However my matter was referred to Reserve Bank of India Central office Foreign Exchage Mumbai and Central Vigilance Commission New Delhi vide there letter no complaintNumber : 15466/2013/Vigilance 3 Date 11/06/2013 which has been forwared to you
And letter no
6070/23.21.023/2012-13 dated 11 June 2013
Addressed to
Nodal Offucer
Punjab National Bank
5 Sansad Mard
New Delhi 110001
Susquent to this I received a phone call from Mr D C Sharma
From lift Road Pnb I had a meeting with him and even handed over copy of letter I received from CVC and Reserve Bank of India Mumbai
He assured me to update me after about a week But surprisingly it been more than two months after a meeting with DC Sharma
Please update me of the progress in the matter
May GODD grant you all wisdom and prosperity
Hope to hear from you soon
DR Ravinder Kumar Sharma
Ac no 3383000100145213
Pnb lift Road Shimla
My address
Professional Promotions
PO box 118 GPO Shimla 171001 HP Shimla
0091 9418069988

7.
Mon, 17 Jun 2013  Baldev Raj Mahi

B.R. Mahi (PF 52135), Nawan Shahar
Ex Manager, Distt. Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar
B.O. Navanshahar Dt. 21.6.2012
Baba Deep Singh Nagar,
Saloh Road, 1. Direct copy to the Reviewing Authority
Backside K.C. Palace, 2. Through Proper Channel of Appellate Authority
Nawan Shahar,
Distt. Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar,
Punjab.


The Executive Director
(The Reviewing Authority)
Punjab National Bank
Personnel Administration Division,
H.O.: 7, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.

Respected Sir,

Re.: My Review Petition under Regulation 18 of D&A Regulations 1977 against the impugned orders of Disciplinary Authority dated 6.7.2011 and also against the impugned orders of Appellate Authority dated 10.12.2011 in the matter of Charge Sheet dated 5.10.2009 under Regulation 6 of D&A Regulations 1977 served upon me.

Respectfully, it is submitted to consider as under:-

- That the captioned charge sheet dated 5.10.2009 was served upon me by the Disciplinary Authority, Circle Office, Hoshiarpur and after conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. The Deputy General Manager, Circle Office, Hoshiarpur passed the final order dated 6.7.2011 thereby inflicting the punishment of my ‘compulsory retirement’ from the bank service.

- That thereafter, I had preferred an appeal under regulation 17 of D&A Regulations 1977 dated 10.9.2011 to the General Manager (Appellate Authority) Punjab National Bank, Personnel Administration Division, H.O. New Delhi. The Appellate Authority has rejected my appeal vide order dated 10.12.2011 which was sent to me under the cover of Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Personnel Administration Division, H.O. New Delhi vide his No. PAD/Head Office/DAC/15035 dated 15.12.2011 which was received by me on 29.12.2011.

- That being agreed from the order of punishment dated 6.7.2011 and also from the Appellate Authority dated 10.12.2011, I prefer this review petition under Regulation 18 of D&A Regulations 1977 within the stipulated period of 6 months. The period of six months would expire on 30.6.2012 and thus, the Review Petition is in order for favourable consideration.

- That the points in my review petition are as under:-

1. That the order of penalty has been passed by the incompetent authority.
It is submitted that in terms of PAD Circular No. 16 dated 10.1.2011, the Head Office has scheduled and designated the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority w.e.f. 10.1.2011, according to which, the Asstt. General Manager in the Circle Office has been designated as Disciplinary Authority and in case, the Asstt. General Manager is not posted then the Deputy General Manager would be the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case, the Asstt. General Manager Mr. T.R. Anand was posted in the Circle Office and he was designated as Disciplinary Authority. But in my case, the Deputy General Manger Sh. …………………………… has passed the final orders dated 6.7.2011 in violation of PAD Circular No. 16 dated 10.1.2011. It is a settled law that when the order has been passed by the incompetent authority then, the same is vitiated being illegal and not liable to be sustained. The reviewing authority is requested to kindly look into this aspect and to quash and set-aside the impugned orders dated 6.7.2011 of the Disciplinary Authority.

2. That the order of the Appellate Authority has been non speaking and to quote as under:-
That I have raised various issues in my appeal whereas, the Appellate Authority has either not dealt with my those issues or if he has dealt with then he has disposed of the same in a very vague and ambiguous manner despite the fact that he has included most of the issues in his final order dated 10.12.2011 at Sr. No. 4.1 to 4.29, which is evident to quote as under:-

a) That the Appellate Authority has agreed in his order at point 4.1 that I have raised the issues in detail relating to violation of Regulations 6(3), 6(4), 6(5), 6(10-1), 6(11) of D&A Regulations etc. whereas, the Appellate Authority has disposed of these issues in a very vague and ambigious manner at Sr. No. 5.1 of his orders dated 10.12.2011 by stating differently that the charge sheet was served upon me and the inquiry had been instituted and proceeded with as per provisions of Punjab National Bank officer employees’ (D&A) Regulations and I was given ample opportunity to refer the relevant records and to submit my defence statement after being served with the charge sheet, which was not the issue. Thus, the issues have been different whereas, the reply has been totally irrelevant with the issues. My submissions at Sr. No. 4.1 are different whereas the disposal by the Appellate Authority at Sr. No. 5.1 is in a different manner not referring to the issues raised by me. So much so, it is not known to the reply of the Appellate Authority that actually, what was represented by me and what it has been stated by the Appellate Authority and thus, the observations of the Appellate Authority at Sr. No. 5.1 are not inconsonance with the issues raised at Sr. No. 4.1 and thus, the order of Appellate Authority is non-speaking.

b) That in terms of Sr. No. 4.10, 4.12 etc. I had raised the issue that the exhibit M-130 was not a ratified document and it was not to be used against me in the matter of Departmental Inquiry Proceedings because the author of this documents was not examined before the Inquiry Officer and thus, it was only hear say evidence. While, pleading this issue I have given the reference from the vigilance manual circulated by the Head Office wherein it has been provided that if the author of investigation report has not been examined before the Inquiry Officer then, this document is redundant. The principle behind it has been that the other persons or the witnesses may confirm the signatures on this document of the author and these witnesses may confirm the contents in these documents, but the said witnesses cannot confirm the truth in the contents of the investigation report. Moreover, no enclosures were enclosed with this investigation report.

But the Appellate Authority has disposed of this issue at Sr. No. 5.2 in a different but in a vague manner without touching to the actual subject matter. The Appellate Authority at Sr. No. 5.2 has stated that I was given fair and ample opportunity to call and to cross examine any witness for my defence before the close of the case during the case of inqury and thus, my contentions regarding the status of exhibit M-130 (Investigation Report) at this stage was not tenable, which was not the issue. The issue was different that the prosecution has used the exhibit M-130 and the Inquiry Officer has relied upon this exhibit whereas, the author of the document was not examined. There was no issue under this reference if I was given fair or ample opportunity to call and to cross-examine any witness for my defence. Moreover, as to how I could cross examine the author of M-130 document when he was not examined by the PO, but relied upon the exhibit M-30 document. Thus, the observations of the Appellate Authority are totally irrelevant, vague and ambiguous.

c) That in terms of sr. No. 4.1 of the order of Appellate Authority I had raised the issue that Sh. Harpal Singh, Sh. M.L. Ahuja and Sh. Dalvinder Singh were the writers and the signatories to all the loan documents, loan proposals, copies of FDRs, but I have been discriminated by imposing such a penalty whereas, lenient view was taken in the case of other officials Sh. Harpal Singh and Sh. M.L. Ahuja etc. I had also stated that the concept of equity as available under Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides positive concept that the action which has been taken in the case of Sh. Harpal Singh and Sh. M.L. Ahuja, the same should have been imposed upon me, since I have been discriminated highly by inflicting the harsh and shocking punishment of compulsory retirement. But, the Appellate Authority has mentioned differently at Sr. No. 5.3 that in another one case, the erring official has also received the same penalty which has been imposed upon me meaning thereby that no such action was taken against all the indicated officials and more particularly, in the case of Sh. Harpal Singh and Sh. M.L. Ahuja, a very light penalty was inflicted upon. Though, the Appellate Authority has directly denied discrimination at Sr. No. 5.3, but at the same time, he has also agreed that I was discriminated in the matter since, same penalty was not imposed upon me as it has been in the case of Sh. Harpal Singh and Sh. M.L. Ahuja and thus, the discrimination is evidently proved.

d) That at Sr. No. 4.2 and 4.29 of the order of Appellate Authority I had contended that the said penalty was imposed upon me in a unreasoned manner, as the views of the Disciplinary Authority were different and favoured imposing of lesser penalty whereas, the CVO had differed with the Disciplinary Authority repeatedly. Even the observations of the views of the CVO have been distorted by the vigilance department, Head Office while conveying the same to the Disciplinary Authority at Circle Office, Hoshiarpur and copies of this correspondence was not provided to me for my representation against the second stage advise of the CVO.

But the Appellate Authority has disposed of this issue in a very casual and in a different manner at Sr. No. 5.4 thereby stating that copies of first stage advise and second stage advise of the CVO were provided to me, without disclosing that as and when these were provided to me and with what direction. In fact, it is a distorted version of the Appellate Authority because the copies of first stage and second stage advise were never provided to me and only after imposing the penalty by the Disciplinary Authority, I had requisitioned these copies under Right to Information Act 2005, which does mean that copies of these advises were provided to me by the Disciplinary Authority before passing the final order dated 6.7.2011.

e) That in terms of Sr. No. 4.5 of the order of the Appellate Authority, I have stated that the charge sheet was issued when most of the accounts were already closed without any financial loss to the bank and the bank has never been short of funds or collateral securities in the matter of those loan accounts wherein, the statement of imputation has been prepared and projected in a manner as it was a fraud case (vide charge-II [A] and charge-VII [b] etc.). As per record there was an error that the saving fund account of the party was not debited by the concerned clerk despite being voucher for the purpose on the record. The borrower has also not withdrawn the said amount from saving fund account whereas, the FDR was issued for the equivalent amount of debit voucher. Thus, it is not a fraud because the equivalent amount remained intact in saving fund account instead of in FD account and thus, such a harsh punishment is not required when it was a case of an error instead of a fraud.

But, the Appellate Authority has considered it a case of fraud in order to justify the imposed penalty, knowing well that the funds remain intact with the bank in saving fund account. In order to dispose of my this contention, the Appellate Authority has stated at Sr. No. 5.5 that my plea that the bank has not remained short of funds or collateral security was not tenable because closure of account does not absolve me of the charges and my acts have maligned the image of the bank without specifying that as to how the image of the bank was maligned which was not the charge. Thus, the Appellate Authority has not disposed of the relevant issue inconsonance it was raised in my appeal and thus, the order of the Appellate Authority is non-speaking.

f) That in terms of allegation-II [A] – i, I had pleaded as extenuating grounds that the FDR was to be prepared by debit to SF account on 11.12.2008 for which vouchers were prepared but inadvertently, the SF account was not debited by making the entry in the system. But the fact remains, that a sum of Rs. 5,12,000/- always remained in SF account in credit of the party. The bank has not suffered any financial loss and the error has been inadvertent. The FDR was prepared in the hand of Sh. Dalvinder Singh, CTO, it was signed firstly by Sh. Harpal Singh, Deputy Manager and thereafter, I have signed it in good faith. No person has been benefited by this error. The party has also not gained anything as a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- remained in credit in SF account at a lower rate of interest 4% per annum whereas, the party has paid higher rate of interest on the overdraft limit sanctioned for Rs. 4,70,000/- thereby showing rate of interest 2% over and above from the rate of interest shown in the FDR. Even after doing the error, the saving fund account was not debited and the amount was not credited in the FDR account, so that higher rate of interest is not paid to the party.

But, the Appellate Authority has deliberately considered it a case of fraud in terms of his observations shown at Sr. No. 5.6 of his order thereby stating that my plea was not acceptable that on account of inadvertent for bonafide error the saving fund account could not be debited while issuing FDR in the name of Rakesh Kumar and while sanctioned the loan as OD limit of Rs. 4,70,000/-, without stating that as to how it was not acceptable when no motives are inferred or proved. It is a settled law that a fraud is that where the action is ill-motivated to have unlawful gains. But when in the name of motive it is proved that there was no gain to the party but a considerable loss to the party then it was not a fraud. In fact, the Appellate Authority has borrowed these observations from the Disciplinary Authority who has submitted his comments in this manner. A reasonable man with application of judicious mind may consider that it was not a case of fraud. Had the party availed overdraft limit on the basis of FDR and at the same time, the party utilized the available balance in the saving fund account to the same extent i.e. equivalent to the amount of FDR then it would have been a case of fraud. But, when the party has lost huge money by paying higher rate of interest then it was not a case of fraud. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority should have considered this overdraft facility against lien on SF account provided they had been reasonable in approach while appraising these issues involved in the charge. Since, the Appellate Authority has not dealt with my contention in consonance as it was raised therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority is non-speaking. The Appellate Authority has done nothing but repeated the charge as well as the contention of the Disciplinary Authority.

g) That in terms of Sr. No. 4.7, I had pleaded that w.e.f. 14.9.2007 to 29.10.2007, I was in abroad on sanctioned leave and after my returning on 30.10.2007, I relied upon Sh. M.L. Ahuja and signed the confirmation of sanction of loan and for the purpose of brevity the exact text of Sr. No. 4.7 is reproduced hereunder:-
Charge 1 - Articles provides that he had issued fake sanction letters of education loan whereas the statement of imputation provides that the said loan was sanctioned to Shri Suresh Madan & Shri Vishal Madan without prior administrative clearance from the, competent authority. The allegation, which has not been included in the Article of charge, the same is not to be proved. He was on sanctioned leave from 14.9.2007 to 29.10.2007 and after his returning from Abroad on 30.10.2007, Shri ML Ahuja told him that he has disbursed the loan in this case in his absence and as per scheme, the sanction was required from one step higher authority and as the appellant was one step higher to him in rank and file, therefore, the loan should be sanctioned by him. He relied upon Shri M.L. Ahuja who was otherwise very active and intelligent than him and put his sanction on the loan application.

But, the Appellate Authority at Sr. No. 5.7 of his order has mentioned differently that there was nothing on record to show that I have put my signatures in the education loan of Sh. Suresh Mohan and Sh. Vishal Madan after returning from leave despite the fact that I was in abroad against sanctioned leave and this entry has also been made in my passport. For the purpose of brevity the photocopy of the passport is also enclosed as Annexure-A thereby proving that I have visited England during the period 14.9.2007 to 29.10.2007. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority has mentioned that while putting my signatures, I failed to ensure administrative clearing whereas, the administrative clearance was to be obtained by the then officiating manager w.e.f. 14.9.2007 to 29.10.2007. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority has stated that vide my letter dated 23.11.2007, I had provided false information to the competent authority that the loan was secured by way of FDR for Rs. 5.00 lacs whereas, there was no such FDR on record of the bank. The Appellate Authority has not looked into the fact that it was the stipulated condition in the sanction which was not complied with by the officiating manager during the period 14.9.2007 to 29.10.2007 without bringing it on record or to my notice. I presumed in good faith that he had complied with his own terms and conditions. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority has stated that I had failed to bring any document on record to prove that during the leave period, I was away from India and for satisfying this observation of the Appellate Authority, I have already enclosed Annexure-A to this effect. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority has stated that my contention regarding non examination of the author of the investigation report was not tenable as every aspects of the charge has been proved by separate ratified documents. These observations of the Appellate Authority are non-speaking because those alleged ratified documents have not been referred but stated in a generalized manner and thus, the order is non-speaking.

h) That in terms of Sr. No. 4.10 of the order of the Appellate Authority, the case of the defence has been that the house was already mortgaged in a different case whereas, a letter of continuity duly obtained was not made available. Besides, this fact, it was also pleaded that in the sanction-cum-appraisal, there was no condition to create the equitable mortgage because there has been sufficient liquid cash assets under bank’s lien to secure the loan. The loan was further secured from the proceeds of FDR amounting to Rs. 2,90,000/- and also lien in the saving fund account amounting to Rs. 4.50 lacs and the loan was finally closed on 28.10.2009 through the proceeds of FDRs amounting to Rs. 2.90 lacs and a sum of Rs. 4.50 lacs lying in saving fund account, meaning thereby that, sufficient liquid cash was available with the bank to secure the loan and in case there was some irregularity in enforcing of letter of continuity even then neither there was any mis-conduct nor the bank interest was jeopardized.

But, the Appellate Authority remained unreasonable by not considering the fact that the loan was fully secured in liquid cash and raised mechanical observation that my contention about the availability of security in the shape of FDR and SF balance in the education loan of Sh. Taranjit Parbha was irrelevant because, the charge against me was about issuance of sanction letter dated 10.6.2007 addressed to the beneficiary stating that the education loan of Rs. 7.00 lacs was secured by way of mortgage of house worth Rs. 45,28,943/- whereas, no such mortgage was created and the charge has been proved against me. These observations of the Appellate Authority shows that the Appellate Authority remained technical as well as mechanical in nature without applying for a judicious mind that the loan was fully secured with liquid cash and thus, the error was not to be given any weightage. Since the exact plea was not discussed and given weightage without assigning any reason thereof, therefore, the order is non-speaking.

i) That in terms of Sr. No. 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13, I had raised various submissions whereas the Appellate Authority has brushed aside these in terms of Sr. No. 5.9 of his observations by stating that the education loans were sanctioned at far off places and FD dated 11.12.2008 of Rs. 5,10,000/- was opened with zero balance without debiting the SF account of the customer, without stating that as to how the said loans were at far off places and as to how there was a significance that the FDR was opened with zero balance when more than the sum amount of FDR was available in the saving fund account and the error was on the part of the clerk, who had not debited the account after making entry of the transaction. These are all mechanical observations because the party has never withdrawn the amount from SF account and to the contrary the party has paid higher rate of interest in the overdraft limit at the rate of 2% over and above the rate of interest shown in the FDR whereas he was eligible to pay rate of interest at the rate of 6%. The observations of the Appellate Authority are nothing but repetition of the charge wherein the merits of the case have not been considered. If the observations were to be recorded in a mechanical manner by just defending the charge, then there was no need to make a provision of appeal.

j) That in terms of Sr. No. 4.3 of the order dated 10.12.2011, I have raised the following issues which were not discussed and disposed of by the Appellate Authority without assigning in a reason thereof.

The Head Office has issued instructions that no charge sheet should be served upon the officer concerned wherein the event is more than four years period and the irregularity is related to the procedural lapse. But in this case, there are a large number of imputations wherein, the events are more than four years period relating to procedural alleged lapses. Thus, the order of punishment is not reasoned. Prior to issuance of charge sheet, neither any explanation was ever called nor any tabular proforma was even serviced as per system in vogue.

Since, the aforesaid issues has not been discussed by the Appellate Authority in his order, therefore, the order is non-speaking, arbitrary and perverse.

k) That at Sr. No. 4.4 of the order of Appellate Authority, I have raised the following issues:

The witnesses were examined without providing the documents in defence and also on the same day when the list of witnesses was adduced and the procedure so adopted is not known to the Law or to the D&A Regulations, 1977.

Since, the aforesaid issues have not been discussed by the Appellate Authority in his order, therefore, the order is non-speaking, arbitrary and perverse.

l) That at Sr. No. 4.6, I have raised the following issue which were not discussed by the Disciplinary Authority due to which his order is non-speaking, arbitrary and perverse.

He always received meritorious and appreciation letters for his working as Incumbent Incharge. His track record has been unblemished in service of 27 years. There is no fraud in any of the cases except at the most may be foolish bonafide inadvertent procedural lapse, if any. His wife has since expired and he has three daughters. He is suffering JJ from the disease of Filaria.

Since, the aforesaid issues have not been discussed by the Appellate Authority in his order, therefore, the order is non-speaking, arbitrary and perverse.

m) That at Sr. No. 4.8 of the order of Appellate Authority, I have raised the following issues:

The sanction letter dated 15.10.2007 vide Exhibit M2 has been signed by Shri M.L. Ahuja and not by him. Thus the Article of charge is directly attributed to Shri Ahuja. Statement of imputation is not covered under Article of charge. There is no evidence that he has written such letters to RO whereas Shri ML Ahuja has written a letter to this effect on 19.10.2007 (vide Exhibit M3[a]) when he was on leave and also was not in India but in abroad.

Since, the aforesaid issues have not been discussed by the Appellate Authority in his order, therefore, the order is non-speaking, arbitrary and perverse.

n) That at Sr. No. 4.9 of the order of Appellate Authority, I have raised the following issues:

LSS for October 2007 wherein lien on FDR of Rs. 5.00 lacs has been mentioned prepared and signed only by Shri M.L. Ahuja. There is no evidence which may provide that he has provided wrong information for confirmation of his action.

o) That I had visited the branch B.O. Usmanpur for verification of record because the Disciplinary Authority did not provide the listed documents along with the charge sheet. I tendered an application to the branch manager for providing me photocopies of the listed documents, so that I could prepare my defence statement properly. But the Branch Manager refused to provide me the photocopies of the said documents due to which I was unable to prepare my proper statement of defence. It may be seen that neither the Disciplinary Authority provided me the photocopies of the documents nor the branch manager whereas, I was advised to submit my defence statement. This issue was raised in my appeal but the Appellate Authority did not appreciate the evidence on record and instead of addressing the issue on merit he has stated differently that I did not submit my defence statement relating to the charge sheet. Thus, the order of Appellate Authority is non-speaking, arbitrary and perverse.
p) That with regard to charge no. 4, I had submitted in my appeal that neither this loan was sanctioned by me nor it was renewed by me nor I was posted at B.O. Usmanpur on 17.5.2005 and thus, the allegation was not remotely attributable to me. It may be seen that on 17.5.2005, I was posted in a different branch i.e. Rahon. But, the Appellate Authority has not appropriated this evidence and without making any comment on my this submission, the appeal was rejected. Thus, the order of Appellate Authority is non-speaking, arbitrary and perverse.

Since, the aforesaid issues have not been discussed by the Appellate Authority in his order, therefore, the order is non-speaking, arbitrary and perverse.

In support of my aforesaid contentions, I refer the following landmark judgements thereby showing emphasis in my contention in a legal and valid form to which the reviewing authority is requested to consider the same sympathetically.

- That in the case of S.D. Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2005 (2) SCT 752 (HPHC) (DB), it was upheld that the Appellate Authority must pass a reasoned order while deciding appeal. It must consider and decide all grounds raised in the memo of appeal.

- That in the case of MMRDA Officers Association Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan RDA 2005 (2) SCT 94 (SC) it was upheld that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at, reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rational is that the affected party knows why the decision has gone against him.

- That in the case of Mohammad Yakub Beldar Vs. Haryana Agriculture University 2005 (2) SCT 285 (P&H) it was held that since order is devoid of any reason and is non speaking and violative of principles of natural justice, it is set-aside.

- That in the case of P.K. Khanna Vs. National Fertilizers Limited 2005 (2) SCT 642 (P&H) (DB) it was upheld that it is not sufficient adherence to the principles of natural justice only to observe that ‘reply is considered and found having no merit’ without recording any reasons. If such a course adopted, it will nagate all the tenets of natural justice.

- That in the case of S.D. Parashar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 2005 (2) SCT 261 (P&H) (DB) it was upheld that it is settled principle of law that the authorities are duty bound to pass detailed speaking orders when Civil Rights of employees are liable to be adversely affected. Hence, order is liable to be quashed on this short ground.

- That in the case of Narender Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2006 (2) SCT 446 (SC) it was upheld that the speaking order is a must and in absence of the same, it is invalid and not liable to be sustained.

- Case State of Uttranchal Vs. Sunil Kumar Kumar Singh Negi-2008(2) SCT-429(S.C). Absence of reasons in the order- order not sustainable- principles are enumerated:-

1. The requirement of indicating reasons has been judiciously recognized as imperative.
2. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes life less.
3. Write to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system.
4. Reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before the court.
5. Another rational is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him.
6. One of the salutary requirement of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made.
7. Write to reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system and reflect the application of mind on the part of the court.

- Case Director of Horticulture, Punjab & Others Vs. Jagjeevan Parshad 2008(2) SCT-725 S.C(DB)(Doctor Arijit Pasayat & P. Satha Sivam and Aftab Allam J.J(3 Judges) wherein it was upheld to read as under:-

1. Reasons introduced clarity in an order.
2. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, however brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge.
3. The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.
4. Reasons substitutes subjectivity by objectivity.
5. Write to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system.
6. Another rational is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him.
7. One of the salutary requirement of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking order.
8. The inscrutable fall of the Sphinx is ordinarily in congruous with a judicial or quasi judicial performance.

- National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gulab Nabi & Anothers 2008(3) SCT-839 (SC)(DB).
- Administration of Justice- Reasoning- Disposal of appeal in speaking terms- 8 reasons.
- State of Himachal Vs. Shisha Ram 2008(4) SCT 138(SC) Section 378(3)- Speaking order- Appeal before High Court against order of acquittal- High Court refused leave by order.
- Heard dismissed’- This is non operative order- Order set aside.
- State Bank of Bikaner Vs. Prabhu Dyal Grover 1995(6) SCC 279- SC
- Divisional Forest Officer VS. Madhusudan Rao JT 2008 (2) SC-253
- Madhya Pardesh Industries Ltd. Vs. union of India AIR 1966 SC 671.
- Engineering & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. VS. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1785.
- S.N. Mukharjee Vs. Union of India 1990(4) SCC 594 SC
- State of Madras Vs. Srinivasan AIR 1966 SC 1827
- Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Laxmi Bai Kshetrya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdip Saran & Others 2009(3) SCT 39- SC
- Even in the case of affirmation of the reasons of Disciplinary Authority of by the Appellate Authority, the reasons for affirmation are required.

3. Violation of Regulation 7(2) of D&A Regulations 1977 for non issuing second show cause notice by the Disciplinary Authority after disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
In terms of charge no. 1 (B-i and B-ii) charge 1 (C) and charge 1 (D), the inquiry officer has not proved these charges against me and he has exonerated me from these charges. But, the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer under Regulation 7(2) of D&A Regulations 1977 and after disagreeing the Disciplinary Authority has passed the final order thereby imposing major penalty upon me.

As per procedure, the Disciplinary Authority should have provided to me the copy of his own findings with a second show cause notice that I should represent my case on the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and after considering my representation, the final order should have been passed. But in the present case, after disagreeing with the findings in the final order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority has simultaneously passed the final order also thereby imposing major penalty without hearing me on the issue. I had raised these issues, specifically and distinctly in my appeal, but the Appellate Authority has not at all referred and considered my this vial issue. The reviewing authority is therefore, requested that he should consider my these submissions because the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has been vitiated being illegal. Both these orders are not liable to be sustained.

In support of my aforesaid submissions, I refer the following judgements for favourable consideration by the reviewing authority.

- That in the case of Jagdish Chander Verma Vs. Union of India 2008 (2) SCT 448 (P&H) (DB) it was upheld that show cause notice to the employee with the detail of reasons of disagreement with the Inquiry Officer is must to enable him to effectively put forward his defence justifying the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Failure to supply such reasons prior to passing punishment order or supplying such a reasons after passing punishment order will be violative of principles of natural justice and would vitiate the order.

- That in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra 1998 (3) SCT 833 (SC) it was upheld that when there is disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of Inquiry Officer then show cause notice to the charged officer is necessary.

- That in the case of Yogi Nath D. Bagade Vs. State of Maharashtra 1999 (4) SCT 403 (SC)/1999 (7) SCC 739 (SC) it was upheld that in case of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of the Inquiry Officer show cause is necessary and in absence of the same the punishment order is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Same contention was further upheld in the following cases:-

- State Bank of India Vs. K.P. Naryanan Kutty 2003(3) SCT 743 (SC)/2003 (2) SCC 449 (SC).
- Rakesh Pal Rana Vs. Union of India and another 2008 (3) SCT 158 J&K High Court.
- State of Madras Vs. A.R. Srinivasan AIR 1966 (SC) 1827.
- Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar 1994 (1) SCT 319 (SC).
- Mewa Singh Vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee 1999 (2) SCC 60-SC.
- Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India 2002 (7) SCC 142 (SC).
- State of Bihar Vs. Lakshmi Shankar Prasad 2002 (10) SCC 351 (SC).
- Narender Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2006 AIR SCW 1969.
- Railway Board New Delhi Vs. Niranjan Singh AIR 1969 SC 966.
- State of Orissa Vs. Vidhya Bhushan Mohapatra AIR 1963 (SC) 779.

Sadha Shivam S. Vs. MD, Head Office, TN State Transport Corporation Limited 2010 – III LLJ 365 (Madras) (N.Kiru Bakaran J). wherein, it was upheld that the Disciplinary Authority disagreed from finding of Inquiry Officer, it has to give employee a second show cause notice thereby disclosing reasons for the difference and opportunity of hearing.

5. That the Appellate Authority has not accorded personnel hearing despite my specific request under the principle of natural justice, even if the same has not been available in any of the Regulations.
In my appeal, I have made specific request to grant me personal hearing under the principle of natural justice, for the reasons that the penalty was capital in nature. The principles of natural justice do provide that the appellant should be heard first particularly when there is a request and only thereafter, the appeal should be considered. But the Appellate Authority has not accorded personal hearing without assigning any reason thereof and thus, the order of the Appellate Authority is vitiated being illegal.

In support of my aforesaid submissions, I refer the following judgements for showing emphasis in my humble submissions.

q) That in the case of S.L. Loona Vs. Punjab National Bank and another 1992(1) SLR(P&H) P-20 the learned court has discussed regulation 17 of D & A Regulations in detail with the reliance of the lordships of Supreme Courts in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel 1985(2) SLR-576(SC) that the principles of natural justice stand excluded “ Not only, therefore, can be principles of natural justice be modified but inceptions to the Nemo Judex in cause sua Rule as also to the Audi Alteram Partam Rule. The Nemo Judex in case sua rule is subject to the doctrine of necessity and yields to it as pointed out by this court in J. Mohapatra and Company Vs. State of Orissa (1985)-1 SCR-322, 334-5(AIR 1984-SC-1572,1576-7)”

The High Court has also relied upon the judgment of Apex court in the case of Ram Chander Vs. Union of India and others 1986(2) SLR-608(SC) which reads as under:-

“ it is not necessary for our purpose to go into the vexed question whether a post decisional hearing is a substitute of the denial of a right of hearing at the initial stage or the observance of the rules of natural justice, since the majority in Tulsi Ram Patel’s case (AIR 1985-SC-1416) unequivocally lays down that the only stage at which a Govt. Servant gets a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him i.e. an opportunity to exonerate himself from the charge by showing that the evidence adduced at the Inquiry is not worthy of credence or consideration or that the charges proved against him are not of such a character as to merit the extreme penalty of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank and that any of the lesser punishment ought to have been sufficient in his case, is at the stage of hearing of a department appeal. Such being the legal position it is of utmost importance after the forty-second amendment as interpreted by the majority in Tulsi Ram Patel’s Case that the Appellate Authority must not only give a hearing to the Govt. servant concerned but also pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by him in appeal. We wish to emphasis that reasoned decisions by tribunals, such as the Railway Board, in the present case will promote public confidence in the administrative process. An objective consideration is possible only if the delinquent servant is heard and given a chance to satisfy the authority regarding the final order that may be passed on his appeal. Consideration of fair play and justice also require that such a personal hearing should be given.”

The Hon’ble High Court has further observed that it is no doubt correct that their lordships of Supreme Court have observed that the principles of natural justice can be excluded by a specific statuary provisions. However, Tulsi Ram’s case has been considered by their lordship in Ram Chander’s case (Supra). Once the Supreme Court has itself interpreted Tulsi Ram’s case, it is not open to any court / authority to take a view different from the one expressed by the Apex Court. Under Article 144, the law as laid down by their lordship is binding. Thus, the Appellate Authority was bound to hear the appellant before hearing his appeal to satisfy the Appellate Authority. The order of Appellate Authority is non set in the eyes of law.

Thereafter, it was specifically mentioned that there is nothing under regulation 7(3) of D & A Regulations that the Disciplinary Authority has been excluded to pass a reasoned and speaking order, which is required in each and every case by the Disciplinary Authority that the order should be speaking or reasoned one.

r) That in the case of Ram Niwas Bansal Vs. SBOP 1998 Vol. 3 SCT(P&H), which a very detailed and exhaustive judgment wherein reliance has been placed by the learned court of their lordships of Supreme Court, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that if the delinquent has made a request for personal hearing then the same must be granted irrespective of the fact whether it has been specifically provided in any of the rules or regulations, otherwise it amounts to serious violation of principles of natural justice.

s) In the case of Lal Ji. Vs. Director Bal Vikas Sewa Ashram Putshar Allahabad High Court in the CMWP 422-47 of 1992 decided on 04.02.93, P-183 it has been mentioned that no authority is excluded to grant personal hearing when it has been requested by the delinquent, failing which it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

t) In the case of Gulab Singh Vs. Maharishi Dayanad University, Rohtak-2005(1) SCT-111(P&H)(DB) it was upheld “ Article 14 & 311- MDU Act, section 9(14)- Disciplinary proceedings- Appeal- Natural Justice at Appellate stage- Personal Hearing at appellate stage is must- Even the statute providing for an appeal against punishment, the Appellate Authority has to adopt a reasonable procedure which would ensure that the Appellant is given a reasoned opportunity to present his case and ensure that it complies with the principles that justice must not only is done but manifestly seen is to be done- The principles of Natural Justice are those fundamental rules, the breach of which will prevent justice from being seen to have been done- The Appellate Authority not only must provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant but also pass a speaking order dealing with each & every contention raised by recording reasons as why it was persuaded to agree with the same- Mere reference to the fact and history of the case in any amount in detail will not satisfy the requirement of a well reasoned / speaking order unless the reasons for disagreement are not recorded elaborately.

u) In the case of K.C Gupta Vs. PGI of Medical Education and Research, sector-12, Chandigarh through its director and another in the CWP no.5485 of 1993 decided on 29.09.93(P&H) DLJ-1993-182 it was upheld that the opportunity of being heard not afforded to the petitioner before deciding his statuary appeal- order passed by the Appellate Authority set aside.

v) In the case of S.K Khosla Vs. FCI-2004(2) SCT-658/2004(111) A.D Delhi-34(Delhi High Court)(DB), it was upheld that inflicting of punishment without opportunity of hearing and its sustainability- regulation 19(1) confers powers upon FCI to terminate service of permanent employee by merely giving three months notice or pay- held, regulation 19(1) is void in terms of section-23 of 1872 ACT being opposed to public policy and is ultra virus Article 14 of Constitution- hence struck down.

w) Indu Bhushan Dwivedi V/s State of Jharkhand, 2010 (3) SCT 343 SC para 18 – Right of hearing is fundamental and forms integral part of the concept of Rule of Law.

6. Other extenuating grounds
1. That I had a clean, unblemished track record of 27 years in the bank services which may kindly be considered.

2. That I am virtually a handicapped person, since I am suffering from incurable chronic disease of lymphatic filariasis, elephantiasis due to which my leg has become like a pillar due to which I cannot move to undertake day to day assignments etc. This disease spreads with the bite of a mosquito which is incurable in the world. It is like cancer.

3. That my wife had died on 19.8.2010 and I have three daughters in the age group of 23 years, 16 years and 14 years and I do not have sufficient means for their education and marriage. My father is also aged about 80 years and he is also dependant upon me. My all of three daughters are getting education and thus, they are unmarried. I have no other means to arrange for their marriage in a proper house with proper relationship under these circumstances.

4. That my Disciplinary Authority has been adamant to show these cases of fraud, whereas, there was not fraud or merit.

5. That the order of punishment as well as order of the Appellate Authority have been illegal wherein, copy of second stage advise of CVO was not provided to me, second show cause notice was not served upon me after disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer etc.

6. That the said penalty was enforced by the CVO whereas, the Disciplinary Authority had earlier proposed lesser punishment and thus, it is not the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, but the penalty as proposed by the CVO.

7. That my date of birth is 24.4.1961 and thus, I am only 51 years of age and at this juncture I am unable to work in any other vocation or place whereas, I have to educate and marry my three unmarried young daughters.

8. That my appeal may be considered as Review Petition since the issue therein have not been appropriately disposed of by the Appellate Authority.

Prayer
1. That my this review petition may kindly be considered sympathetically and favourably.

2. That the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

3. That an opportunity of personal hearing may kindly be accorded under the principle of natural justice.

Submitted for favourable consideration.
.

Yours faithfully,

(B.R. Mahi)
Encl.:
1. Annexure-A
2. Proof of visiting England during the
period of 14.9.2007 to 29.10.2007.
3. Proof of disease.

6.
Mon, 17 Jun 2013  Baldev Raj Mahi

Baldev raj Mahi,
S/o Sh.Ram Asra, Nawanshahar (Pb)
Ex-Manager, Dated: 10-09-2011
Baba Deep Singh Nagar,
Saloh Road,
Backside K.C.Palace, Nawanshahr
Distt.Sahid Bhagat Singh Nagar 1. Through proper channel of Deputy General Manager(DA),
Circle Office, Hoshiapur
The General Manager, 2. Direct copy to Appellate Authority
(Appellate Authority),
Personnel Administration Divn.,
Punjab National Bank,
Head Office, 7, Bhikaiji Cama Place,
New Delhi

R/Sir

Reg: Appeal under Regulation 17 of D & A Regulations, 1977 in the matter of Charge Sheet dated 05-10-2009 served upon me under Regulation 6 of D & A Regulations, 1977 by the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority), Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Hoshiarpur, against the impugned orders of punishment vide No.COH/HRD/I/BRM/2298 dated 06-07-2011, served upon me by the Assistant General Manager, (Disciplinary Authority), Circle Office, Hoshiarpur thereby inflicting the major penalty under Regulation 4(h) of D & A Regulations, 1977.

Respectfully, it is submitted to consider as under:-

1. That the Deputy General Manager, the then (Disciplinary Authority), Circle Head, Hoshiarpur has served upon me Charge Sheet dated 05-10-2009 under Regulation 6 of D & A Regulations, 1977 for the alleged lapses while I was working as Manager at BO Usmanpur and thereafter, he had also passed an order for regular enquiry proceedings.
2. That after conclusion of regular hearings and after receipt of enquiry report of the Inquiry Officer, the Assistant General Manager, now (Disciplinary Authority), Circle Office, Hoshiarpur has passed the final order vide No.COH/HRD/I/BRM/2298 dated 06-07-2011 and inflicted the punishment under Regulation 4(h) of compulsory retirement. The said impugned order dated 06-07-11 was served upon me on 16-07-11.
3. That being aggrieved from the disproportionate, harsh and shocking punishment to the conscious of a reasonable man, I prefer an Appeal under Regulation 17 of D & A Regulations, 1977 wherein there is a provision that such Appeal should be filed within the stipulated period of 45 days or alternatively to seek extension under Regulation 21 of D & A Regulations, 1977. In the present case, the period of 45 days was expiring on 29-08-2011 and in apprehension that I may not be able to prefer the Appeal within the stipulated period of 45 days, I had further moved a separate application/representation on 23-08-2011 thereby seeking extension under Regulation 21 of D & A Regulations, 1977 upto 14-09-2011 which has not been responded adversely. In the light of my all these submissions, I hereunder prefer this Appeal within the period of extension upto 14-09-2011 and thus, the Appeal is in order for favourable consideration. The issues in Appeal are as under:-

Preliminary Submissions
In the present case, neither the proceedings were called to order nor the same have been as per provisions made in D & A Regulations, 1977 nor the order of punishment has been reasonable nor based on merit and a number of violations of the principles of natural justice have been made thereby jeopardizing the interest in my defence case and to quote as under:-
1. That the following D & A Regulations have been violated which have been substantiated and statutory in nature being formulated and constituted by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), the Board of Directors of Punjab National Bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, thereby making the said Regulations namely Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 and to quote as under:-
a) Violation of Regulation 6(3)
This Regulation provides that the allegation should be specific and distinct and not general in nature because the allegation which is general in nature, the same is vague and ambiguous. But in the present case, a number of statement of imputations are vague and ambiguous wherein the guilt has not been described with the detail of events in a specific and distinct manner.
b) Violation of Regulation 6(3)
This Regulation further provides that the listed documents per Annexure-III of the charge sheet should be enclosed with the charge sheet and incase of any difficulty, the same should be recorded in detail. But in this case, neither the documents were enclosed with the charge sheet in terms of Annexure-III of the charge sheet nor any reason for not providing the same was recorded. To the contrary, I was advised to submit my defence statement which was not possible without referring to the listed documents and without taking assistance. Thus, the interest of my defence has been prejudiced and the opportunity to file my defence statement was denied. Thus, the interest in my defence case was prejudiced.
c) Violation of Regulation 6(4)
This Regulation provides that the Disciplinary Authority would consider the defence statement of the CO and only thereafter, he would decide if a departmental enquiry was necessary or not. But in this case without affording me an opportunity of submitting defence statement, the order of enquiry was made. I had myself written to the Disciplinary Authority specifically that the copies of listed documents should be provided so that I may refer the same with the originals and may take assistance for preparing and submitting proper and effective defence statement but instead of providing me the copies of listed document, order of enquiry was made vide letter dated 16-11-2009. This Regulation, to the contrary, provides that enquiry is not necessary in all the cases.
d) Violation of Regulation 6(5)
This Regulation provides that the Disciplinary Authority should provide the complete set of charge sheet, complete set of listed documents per Annexure-III of the charge sheet, list of witnesses etc., to the Inquiry Officer so that the Presenting Officer may not come into picture to interfere with these documents. Thereafter, these documents would also be provided directly by the Inquiry Officer to the CO. But neither the said documents were enclosed with the charge sheet nor these were provided to the Inquiry Officer and thus, the strict provisions of the Regulations were violated. Not only this but the Presenting Officer was made fully authorized either to add any document or to delete any document or to prepare any list of documents and witnesses, without any such authority with the Presenting Officer in terms of D & A Regulations, 1977. Even D & A Regulations do not agree that the Disciplinary Authority may delegate these powers to the Presenting Officer for want of specific provisions in the said Regulations. Thus, the interest of my defence case was prejudiced.
e) Violation of Regulation 6(10-a)
This Regulation also provides that the Inquiry Officer would provide the set of documents to the CO as it was received by him from the Disciplinary Authority in terms of Regulation 6 (5) of D & A Regulations. But in this case, the Presenting Officer has provided the list of documents and also copies of the documents without any power and without any authority in terms of D & A Regulations. Thus, prejudice to the case of my defence.
f) Violation of Regulation 6 (11)
This Regulation also provides that the Inquiry Officer should requisition the documents directly from the custodian instead of involving the Presenting Officer for the documents requisitioned by the CO. But in this case, the Inquiry Officer involved the Presenting Officer instead of requisitioning the documents directly from the custodian due to which, my interest in my defence has been jeopardized. It may be seen that the Presenting Officer has denied various documents in the name of non-availability whereas the same were available and incase of actual loss, no responsibility and accountability was ever fixed by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, prejudice to the case of my defence.
2. That the Presenting Officer has adduced a number of those documents which were not listed by the Disciplinary Authority in his list in terms of Annexure-III of the charge sheet without any power and without any authority as it is not known to D & A Regulations. Thus, prejudice to the case of my defence.
3. That the Disciplinary Authority had made out it a case of no evidence as no list of witnesses was prepared. But the Presenting Officer modified and revised the charge sheet by submitting his own list of witnesses whereas this power was not vested with the Presenting Officer in terms of D & A Regulations, 1977. Thus, prejudice to the case of my defence.
4. That the investigation report vide Exbt M130 has been a redundant document whereas it was relied upon by the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority to prove the charges. It is mentioned that the investigation report is not a valid document to prove the charge even if the signatures of its author are recognized by a witness alongwith contents in the report. It is so, because for the purpose of ratification of report, the examination of its author is necessary before the Inquiry Officer so that an opportunity of defence by way of cross examination by the CO is provided to him wherein the vertical and the horizontal profile of the report and its author are examined. In absence of cross examination of the author of the investigation report, it is a redundant document because to prove the truth in the contents of the report is a different matter than the matter to identify and to recognize the contents in a report and as such, both these aspects are different and distinct. It is also added that if the Exbt M130 is deleted from the enquiry record, then, nothing is substantiated against me because whatever it has been relied upon by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, the same has been based on this Exbt M130. Thus, prejudice to the case of my defence.
5. That with regard to the charge I (A) relating to the account No.JB64 in the name of Suresh Madaan and Sh.Vishal Madaan sanctioned on 15-10-2007, it is submitted that w.e.f. 13-09-2007 to 29-10-2007, I was in abroad against sanctioned leaves whereas this loan was sanctioned, disbursed and reported to the controlling authority by Sh.M.L.Ahuja, who was officiating in my place as Incumbent Incharge. In this case, I have simply put my signatures on sanction after returning from abroad on or after 30-10-2007 with the presumption that I was one step higher in MMGS-II than Sh.M.L.Ahuja, who was JMGS-I to ratify his action but the various reportings made by Sh.Ahuja have also been attributed to me towards proving the charge. Thus, I was grossly discriminated.
6. That the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer with regard to charge-I (B), (C) and (D) wherein the Inquiry Officer has not proved these charges but the Disciplinary Authority has shown his disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and has also recorded his ‘dissent note’ and on the basis of the same, this punishment was inflicted upon, without affording me an opportunity of representation. In such cases, the procedure is that the Disciplinary Authority should have issued a show cause notice with the disagreed findings and ‘dissent note’ thereof so that the CO may submit his representation for favourable consideration by the Disciplinary Authority with application of judicious mind and only thereafter, he should proceed further to pass final order of punishment or exoneration or as the case may be in terms of Regulation 7(2). Since this procedure was not followed up and the final order was passed in one go, therefore, the entire order of punishment is vitiated on this ground alone.
7. That the imputations which are not included in the Article of charge are also not a charge and the punishment based on them is not liable to be sustained.
- That It is submitted that whatever the charge is there, the same is Article of charge and whatever it is not mentioned in the Article of charge, the same is not an allegation. It is also relevant to state that the statement of imputation is not a charge but it is a statement of ‘mix’ i.e. statement of facts and statement of allegation just to support the Article of charge whereas the Article of charge is not to support the statement of imputation. Accordingly, that statement of imputation in a charge which is not included and covered under Article of charge should not be considered as a charge, but statement of facts.
But in this case, there are a number of statement of imputations which are outside the purview of the Article of charge whereas the same have been considered as proved and the order of punishment has also been based on those statement of imputations. Thus, the punishment in question is highly disproportionate, harsh and shocking in nature.
8. Discrimination in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India
- That it is submitted that Sh.Harpal Singh, Sh.M.L.Ahuja and Sh.Dalwinder Singh etc.,have been writers and the signatories to all the respective loan documents, loan proposals, copies of FDRs etc., which have been indicated in the charge sheet but surprisingly no disciplinary action proceedings were initiated against them whereas I have been discriminated by initiating disciplinary proceedings and inflicting of harsh and shocking punishment of ‘compulsory retirement’
9. That the copies of first stage and second stage advice of the CVO were not provided to me whereas the same were considered on the behind of my back thereby prejudicing the interest in my defence case which is against the principles of natural justice.
It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has received first stage advice as a vetting and approval of the charge sheet whereas copy of it was not provided to me alongwith charge sheet for my representation. Similarly, second stage advice was also received by the Disciplinary Authority from the CVO whereas copy of it was also not provided to me before passing final order, so that I could represent in the matter for favourable consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. This procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority by considering the material documents on the behind of my back is not known either to the law or to the principles of natural justice or to the D & A Regulations, 1977. The bank has itself prepared and circulated Vigilance Manual wherein it has been specifically provided that copy of first stage and second stage advices should be provided to the CO for his representation in terms of Chapter 6 Para 12 page 44, 45 and for the purpose of brevity, the same is reproduced hereunder:-
Provision of the Vigilance Manual circulated by the Head Office to all the branches:- Chapter 6 para 12 paged 44 & 45
12 Making available copy of CVC advice to the CO
To enable the concerned employee an opportunity to make his representation on the advice of CVC, a copy of advice received may be made available to him:
a} First stage advice:- A copy of Commission's first stage advice may be made available to the concerned employee along with a copy of charge sheet for his information. However, it is not necessary to call for the representation of the concerned employee as he, in any case, gets an opportunity to represent against the proposal for initiation of departmental proceedings against him.
b] Second stage advice:- When the CVC's second stage advice is obtained, a copy thereof may be made available to the concerned employee along with report of Enquiry Officer to give him an opportunity to make representation against Enquiry Officer's findings and the CVC's advice, if he desires so.
10. That it was not the decision of the Disciplinary Authority but of the CVO to inflict the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement’ and since the order of punishment is highly influenced from extraneous factors and as a binding decision of the CVO, therefore, the same is not liable to be sustained.
That after receipt of final order, I was guided by some of my friends that it was a case which was duly registered with the CVO and the CVO has provided the first stage and second stage advices to the Disciplinary Authority which were considered by the Disciplinary Authority on the behind of my back. I was also guided that it was not the decision of the Disciplinary Authority but of the CVO to inflict the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement’ or any such punishment whereby I can be removed from the bank’s services. Accordingly, I tried to obtain the copies of these documents but the same were not provided due to which, I have thereafter applied for this information under RTI Act, 2005 to the CPIO, Circle Office, Hoshiarpur vide my application dated 18-07-2011 and thereafter, the CPIO, Hoshiarpur vide his letter dt.30-08-2011 has provided me copies of the first stage and second stage advices of the CVO whereby the CVO succeeded to get his forceddecision implemented by way of inflicting the punishment through Disciplinary Authority of my ‘compulsory retirement’ from the bank services as is evident from the following documents”-
a) That in terms of letter No.COH:HRD:1:BRM:DAC:287 dt.29-01-11 of Deputy General Manager(Disciplinary Authority), Circle Office, Hoshiarpur to CVO Vigilance Deptt., Head Office, New Delhi, he has placed his recommendations to read as under:-
Vide letter dt.29-01-2011 of Disciplinary Authority to CVO, New Delhi
“After giving due consideration to the contents of enquiry proceedings, written briefs of both Presenting Officer and CO, enquiry report and comments of the CO and keeping in view the gravity of lapses, committed by Sh.B.R.Mahi, I propose to impose upon him major penalty of “Reduction to five lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of five years with further direction that he will not earn increments during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay in terms of clause 4 (f) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (D & A Regulations, 1977)” Further, on revocation of his suspension, he will not be entitled to any benefit monetary or otherwise for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance, already paid to him.
On receipt of your advice in the matter, we shall act upon accordingly.
Sd/-
29-01-2011
Deputy General Manager
(Disciplinary Authority)
b) That thereafter the CVO, Head Office, New Delhi through Chief Manager vide his letter NO.VIG/HSPR/4520/2296 dated 10-03-2011 conveyed the following directions as observations thereof.
Vide letter dated 10-03-2011 of CVO through Chief Manager to Circle Head, CO, Hoshiarpur
“Please refer to your letter No.COH:HRD:1:BRM:Disciplinary Action Cell:287 dt.29-01-2011 forwarding therewith the case of Sh.Mahi for seeking our second stage advice.
The matter was examined and placed before the CVO who has observed that :-
“Some of the charges have been held proved and have extreme malafide and moral turpitude issues. Normally, it would be difficult to agree for such officers to continue in the services of the bank when doubtful integrity and/or moral turpitude issues are involved.”
In view of the above observations of the CVO, Disciplinary Authority is requested to re-examine the matter and send us his reconsidered views for our further necessary action. Incase of disagreement, Disciplinary Authority may send the case with justifications thereof.
Please treat the matter as most urgent.
Sd/-
Chief Manager

c) That thereafter the Circle Head, Disciplinary Authority, Hoshiarpur has again persuaded the CVO in terms of his letter No.CO:HRD/1:DISCI:991 dt.24-03-2011 that the punishment of reduction in stages would suffice and for the purpose of brevity, the same is also reproduced hereunder:-
Vide letter dated 24-03-2011 of Circle Head (Disciplinary Authority), Hoshiarpur to CVO, Head Office, New Delhi
“As per advice, the entire record relating to the Disciplinary Authority case of Mr.Mahi has been re-examined and we do agree that some of the charges have been held proved but at the same time keeping in view the period of more than 27 years of service at his credit and his performance as Incumbent Incharge at the branch which remained at satisfactory level--barring the irregularities mentioned in the charge sheet – we propose that he may be given a chance to prove his bonafide in the interest of institution by allowing him to work on non-sensitive positions and he may be advised to mend his ways of functioning. At the same time, we also propose to impose the penalty ‘reduction to seven lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of seven years with further direction that he will not earn increments during the pay of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay in terms of clause 4 (f) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (D & A Regulations, 1977).
d) That thereafter the CVO through Chief Manager vide his letter VIG.HSPR/4520/3833 dt.19-04-2011 conveyed to the Circle Head to read as under:-
Vide letter dated 19-04-2011 of CVO, New Delhi to Circle Head, Hoshiapur
“The matter was examined and placed before the Chief Vigilance Officer who has opined as under:-
“The actions of erring official involves issue of moral turpitude/doubt about his integrity as OD against FD of zero balance, issuance of fake education loan/certificate for AUD etc., Hence, continuation of his services in the bank is not desirable.”
Keeping in view the above observations, Disciplinary Authority has requested to re-examine the matter and send us his reconsidered views enabling us to place the same before the Chief Vigilance Officer.
Sd/-
Chief Vigilance Officer

e) That thereafter the Circle Head (Disciplinary Authority) has again reiterated his earlier recommendations as contained in letter dated 24-03-2011, vide his revised letter dt.04-05-2011 to the CVO to read as under:-
Vide letter dated 04-05-2011 of Circle Head, Hoshiarpur to CVO, Head Office, New Delhi
“As per advice, the entire record relating to the Disciplinary Authority case of Mr.Mahi has been re-examined and we do agree that the action of erring official involves issues of moral turpitude/doubt about his integrity but on reconsideration of the entire case, we reiterate that keeping in view the period of more than 27 years of service at his credit and his performance as Incumbent Incharge at the branch which remained at satisfactory level – barring the irregularities mentioned in the charge sheet – we propose that he may be given a chance to prove his bonafide in the interest of institution by allowing him to work on non-sensitive position and he may be allowed to mend his ways of functioning. At the same time, we also propose to impose the penalty “Reduction to seven lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of seven years with further directions that he will not earn increments during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay in terms of clause 4 (f) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (D & A Regulations, 1977)
Sd/-
Circle Head
f) That thereafter again the CVO pressurized the Disciplinary Authority to inflict such punishment wherein the CO may not be in the service of the bank vide letter No.VIG/HSPR/4520/4642 dt.01-06-2011 and the relevant text of the same is also reproduced hereunder:-
Vide letter dated 01-06-2011 of CVO, Head Office, New Delhi
The matter was examined and placed before the Chief Vigilance Officer who has opined as under:-
“In the matter, where public money is involved and the intention of an Officer is seen to be doubtful integrity/malafide, there can be no negotiations. He is unable to agree with the Disciplinary Authority’s views as in his views, his stiff major punishment is called for. Giving another chance to a person of doubtful integrity can jeopardize the public funds and can also lead to other innocent officials getting in trouble”
Keeping in view the above observations, Disciplinary Authority is requested to re-examine the matter and send us his reconsidered views enabling us to place the same before the Chief Vigilance Officer.
Sd/-
Chief Manager
g) That thereafter the Disciplinary Authority vide his letter No.CO:HRD/1:DISCI:1779 dt.15-06-2011 has finally yielded and surrendered before the CVO and revised his recommendations to read as under:-
Vide letter dt.15-06-2011 of Circle Head (Disciplinary Authority), Hoshiarpur to CVO
“As per advice the relevant record relating to the Disciplinary Authority case of Sh.Mahi has been re-examined and while agreeing with the views of the CVO we, after reconsideration, propose to impose the penalty ‘compulsory retirement’ under clause 4(h) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (D & A Regulations, 1977) in the matter of captioned charge sheet. Further, he will not be entitled to any benefit monetary or otherwise for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance, already paid.
h) That after getting his order recommended from the Disciplinary Authority, the CVO immediately agreed upon with the proposed punishment vide letter No.VIG/HSPR/4520/5527 dt.28-06-2011 to the Circle Head and the same is also reproduced hereunder:-
Vide letter of the CVO through Chief Manager dt.28-06-2011 to Circle Head, Hoshiarpur
“The matter was examined and placed before the Chief Vigilance Officer who has concurred with the views of Disciplinary Authority to impose upon Sh.Mahi the penalty of ‘compulsory retirement’ – under clause 4 (h) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (D & A Regulations, 2977) in the matter of captioned charge sheet. “
From the above, it is evident that the CVO vide his advice dated 10-03-2011 succeeded to get his decision implemented finally on 28-06-2011 for which, the Disciplinary Authority was compelled to change his recommendations four times i.e. first recommendations dated 29-01-2011 to inflict the punishment of reduction of my salary by five stages for a period of five years, thereafter on 24-03-2011 for reduction of my salary by seven stages for a period of seven years, thereafter again on 04-05-2011 to reiterate the earlier recommendations dated 24-03-2011 for reduction of salary by seven stages and finally on 15-06-2011 to inflict the punishment of my ‘compulsory retirement’ for which the CVO was adamant since beginning to inflict that punishment by which I may be out of bank services. Had it been the independent decision of the Disciplinary Authority, then, it was not required by him to send his recommendations four times and he would have inflicted the punishment in one go as per his earlier recommendations to inflict the punishment of reduction of my salary by five stages. Thus, it was a forced decision of the CVO instead of the Disciplinary Authority.
The Learned Courts have not favoured to continue such decisions of the CVO and for the purpose of brevity, I refer the following landmark judgements only to impress upon that my submissions are legally sound and are liable to be considered favourably by the Appellate Authority in a sympathetic manner.
- Nagraj Shivarao Karjagy Vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal 1991(2) SCT-307-SC/AIR-1991-SC-1507.
- State Bank of India V/S D.C Aggarwal 1993(1), SCT –225
- VK Gupta V/S SBI and others 2002(2) SCT-1120
- Kumayu Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. V/S Girja Shanker Panth and Others (2001)- Supreme Court cases 182;
- State Bank of India Vs. D.C Aggarwal 1993(1) SCT-225-SC/AIR 1993-S.C.1997
- A.N.D’s Silva V/S Union of India 1962 Suppl.(1) SER-968.
- S. Sheokand Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce 2004(2) SCT-667(P&H).
The relevant text of the case S.B.I Vs. D.C. Aggarwal vide para-4,5 & 6 is reproduced hereunder:-

“None of the submissions are of any help. The order is vitiated not because of mechanical exercise of power or for non-supply of the inquiry report but for relying and acting on material which was not only irrelevant but could not have been looked into. Purpose of supplying document is to contest its veracity or give explanation. Effect of non-supply of the report of inquiry officer before imposition of punishment need not be gone into nor it is necessary to consider validity of Rule5. But non-supply of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back of respondent without his participation, and one does not know on what material which was not only sent to the Disciplinary Authority but was examined and relied, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry. From letter produced by the respondent, the authenticity of which has been verified by the learned additional solicitor general, it appears the bank turned down the request of the respondent for a copy of CVC recommendation as ‘the correspondence with the central vigilance commission is a privileged communication and cannot be forwarded as the order passed by the Appointing Authority deals with the recommendation of the CVC which is considered sufficient’. Taking action against an employee on confidential documents which is the foundation of order exhibits complete misapprehension about the procedure that is required to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority. May be that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded its own findings and it may be coincidental that reasoning and basis of returning the finding of guilt are same as in the CVC report but it being a material obtained behind back of the respondent without his knowledge or supplying of any copy to him, the High Court in our opinion did not commit any error in quashing the order. Non- supply of the vigilance report was one of the grounds taken in appeal. But that was so because the respondent prior to service of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority did not have any occasion to know that CVC had submitted some report against him. The submission of the learned additional solicitor general that CVC recommendations are confidential, copy of which, could not be supplied cannot be accepted. Recommendation of vigilance prior to initiation of proceedings are different than CVC recommendation which was the basis of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Even the submissions of non-prejudice is not well founded. The respondent was a very senior officer of the bank. He was promoted to the top executive grade in August’ 1980. We have refrained from entering into merits but once the Disciplinary Authority found that the action of the respondent did not cause any harm to the bank not the respondent gained out of it the higher court cannot be said to have misdirected itself in quashing the order for procedural error.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.”

Thus, the aforesaid punishment is not liable to be sustained.
11. That most of the charges have been leveled after lapse of four years period which are against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the bank guidelines.
The Head Office has issued instructions that no charge sheet should be served upon to the officer concerned wherein the event is more than four years period and the irregularity is related to the procedural lapse. But in this case, there are a large number of imputations wherein the events are more than four years period relating to procedural alleged lapses. Thus, the order of punishment is not reasoned.
12. That prior to issuance of the charge sheet, neither any explanation was ever called nor any tabular proforma was even serviced as per system in vogue.
That the bank has developed a system that before issuing of the charge sheet, the explanation of the alleged erring official should be called so that the issues are examined in an impartial manner and also without leaning of mind towards the investigation report as charges. But in this case, this procedure was not followed up and thus, the case in my defence was prejudiced.
13. That the Presenting Officer has adduced the documents in piece meal due to which, the interest of my defence was prejudiced.
The Presenting Officer has not adduced the documents at its threshold stage but in piecemeal i.e. on 12-02-2010 vide Exbt ME2 to ME124, thereafter on 22-02-2010 vide Exbt ME125 to ME132 etc., whereas the proceedings were held on various other dates prior to 12-02-10 and 22-02-10 i.e. 07-12-09, 08-12-09, 29-12-2009 and 20-01-10.
14. That the witnesses were examined without providing the documents in defence and also on the same day when the list of witnesses was adduced and the procedure so adopted is not known to the Law or to the D & A Regulations, 1977.
That on 13-04-2010, I had submitted my list of documents vide Exbt DE2 (a to e) whereas the Presenting Officer has also submitted his list of witnesses from MW1 to MW6 on 13-04-2010 itself and thereafter he had also got his witness MW1 examined without a proper opportunity of defence. As per procedure, first of all the documents in defence should have been provided for confrontation and cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. It is also a settled law that before examination of the witnesses, clear notice of three days’ should be given. Thus, the procedure so adopted has been violative of principles of natural justice thereby vitiating the order of punishment.
15. That if the listed witnesses of the prosecution are not examined then, the order of punishment is not liable to be sustained.
The Presenting Officer has listed Sh.S.R.Garg, the writer of the Exbt M130 which is an investigation report vide his list dated 13-04-2010 at Sr.No.5. But thereafter, he was not examined either for ratification of the Exbt M130 or for affording me an opportunity of his cross examination. To the contrary, the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority both have relied upon the Exbt M130 for the purpose of proving the charges. Infact, this charge sheet is nothing but a true copy or replica of the Exbt M130. If the Exbt M130 is withdrawn from the record of enquiry, then, no charge is proved against me. But the fact remains that when Sh.S.R.Garg was a relied upon witness of the Presenting Officer then, his non-examination before the Inquiry Officer has vitiated the order of punishment as it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
16. That the charge sheet was issued when most of the accounts were already closed without any financial loss to the bank.
As per my subsequent submissions, it is evident that most of the accounts have already been closed before the issuance of charge sheet, thus, the charge sheet was without any cause.
17. That the bank has never been short of funds or collateral securities in the matter of those loan accounts wherein the statement of imputation has been prepared and projected in a manner as it was a fraud case. (vide charge No.II (A), VII (B)
It is submitted that bank has never been short of funds in those loan accounts wherein it has been alleged that the FDRs were issued with zero balance and overdraft facility was thus sanctioned against those FDRs by treating them as clean advances. But the fact in those cases has been different that on account of foolish or inadvertent but bonafide error, the SF accounts could not be debited as the FDRs were to be prepared to debit of SF accounts and whatever the amount was required in respective FDRs, more than that remained outstanding in the respective SF accounts and the same was also never withdrawn by the party. Finally, the FDRs were closed by debit to SF accounts in the respective cases.
But while preparing the statement of imputation, the fact that more than the similar amount of FDRs remained available throughout in the respective SF accounts was not mentioned. This fact was also not included in the statement of imputation that the said FDRs were to be prepared to the debit of SF accounts wherein, CTO did not debit the account despite putting his signatures on the vouchers to show such debits.
Since the bank never remained short of funds in any of the cases, therefore, these were not fraud cases. Moreover, the bank has not suffered any loss on account of this bonafide lapse because lower rate of interest was paid by the bank for the amount remained in the respective SF accounts than the higher rate of interest to be paid in the respective FD account. Thus, this point may kindly be reviewed so that my this case may come out from vigilance overtone or showing integrity as doubtful.
18. That my case was not considered on humanitarian grounds.
a) That I always received meritorious and appreciation letters for my working as Incumbent Incharge.
b) That my track record has been unblemished.
c) That I had already put clean and clear service of 27 years in the bank and thus, it was necessary to see my track record of 27 years period.
d) That there is no fraud in any of the cases except at the most may be foolish bonafide inadvertent procedural lapse, if any.
e) That my wife has since been expired after prolonged expensive illness.
f) That I have no son to take care of my family affairs.
g) That I have three daughters for their education and marriage.
h) That I am suffering from the disease of Flaria which is uncureable.
i) That I have no other source of income.
j) That I do not have any past savings or funds in any shape or form or even I am not in a position to continue my family members with food, clothing, education, medical care and to discharge all other social and substantial and subsistent requirements for survival and to live with honour and dignity in the society.
k) All sympathies as human being are required.
l) That I was not the only person in the branch whereas all other officials have been exonerated for the same course of lapses and only I have been discriminated in the matter.

On Merit
Article No.I – He issued fake FDRs/fake sanction letters of education loan/fake overdraft limits in the absence of proper sanction at branch level.
Charge 1(A) – Sh.Mahi has sanctioned term loan (education) loan of Rs.4 lac (account No.JB64) for pursuing diploma course in favour of Sh.Suresh Madan and Sh.Vishal Madan on 15-10-2007 and has committed the following irregularities.
a) He sanctioned term loan (education) loan of Rs.4 lac for pursuing diploma course without seeking prior administrative clearance from the competent authority.
Case of the defence
1. That the statement of imputation is outside the purview of Article of charge because the Article provides that I had issued fake sanction letters of education loan whereas the statement of imputation provides that the said loan was sanctioned without prior administrative clearance from the competent authority, which is not the charge. Thus, the findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority are arbitrary and perverse as the same have been based on statement of imputation instead of Article of charge. It is a settled principle that the findings have to be based on Article of Charge instead of statement of imputations because the statement of imputation is only to support the Article of Charge and thus, the allegation which has not been included in the Article of charge, the same is not to be proved. The Article of charge does not provide that prior administrative clearance from the competent authority was required while sanctioning education loan.
2. That it is a settled law that the Inquiry Officer has to record his findings on Article of Charge, incase a charge has been proved on the basis of provisions made in a particular Article of Charge and not on the basis of statement of imputations. The statement of imputation is only to support the Article of Charge and when the statement of imputation is outside the purview and jurisdiction of the Article of Charge, then, the charge is not proved.
Bank has also issued instructions to this effect in terms of Vigilance Manual by the CVC vide para 12.1.3 page 143 which provides to read as under:-
"Special care has to be taken while drafting a charge sheet. A charge of lack of devotion of duty or integrity or unbecoming conduct should be clearly spelt out and summarized in the Article of Charge. It should be remembered that ultimately the l.O. should be required to place his specific findings only on Articles as they appear in the charge sheet. The courts have stuck down charge sheets on account of the charges framed being general or vague (S.K. Rehman Vs. State of Orissa 60 CLT 419)"
3. That on account of not including the imputation i.e. requiring prior administrative clearance before sanction, in the Article of charge, the opportunity of defence was not provided. I was guided that I have to defend myself to the extent the allegation is covered under Article of charge because the entire statement in the imputation is not a charge but may be statement of facts. Thus, the findings were vitiated being illegal since the principles of natural justice have been violated and the findings were not based on the principles of penal jurisprudence.
4. That as per record of the enquiry, it is a fact that the loan was sanctioned on 15-10-2007and in terms of Exbt M2, the letter of sanction was signed by Sh.M.L.Ahuja, who was officiating as Manager in my absence and at the same time, the loan application dated 13-10-2007 vide Exbt M3 was also filled in by Sh.M.L.Ahuja, the letter dated 19-10-2007 of the branch to Assistant General Manager, BO Phagwara was written and signed by Sh.M.L.Ahuja for issuing of DD for AD 10350 fvg Holmes Institute and per Exbt M3 (d), the LSS was also signed by Sh.M.L.Ahuja. It is pertinent to mention that w.e.f. 14-09-07 to 29-10-2007, I was on sanctioned leave and not only this but during this period, I was in England and not in India as I had visited there to see one of my relatives and the branch was being headed by Sh.M.L.Ahuja, my second man. For this purpose, the leave was sanctioned by the controlling office and the office order vide Exbt D48 dt.13-09-07 was also issued.
5. That as per enquiry record, the sanction letter Exbt M2 has been signed by Sh.M.L.Ahuja and thus, the charge is not proved against me. But the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have either misconceived or have been deliberate in the matter that my sanction on the loan application has been considered as a conclusive and alone sanction.
Basic Error and technical grounds therein considered by Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority.
It is submitted that I have been implicated on technical grounds and not on merit by committing a basic error in the findings and also in the impugned orders in question. The Attributable technical error has been on my part also that after my returning from Abroad on 30-10-2007 or thereafter, Sh.M.L.Ahuja told me that he has disbursed the loan in this case in my absence and as per scheme, the sanction was required from one stephigher authority and as I was one step higher to him in rank and file, therefore, the loan should be sanctioned by me so that no objection from the Regional Office is received or invited. It is also placed on record that neither I have been extraordinary intelligent nor highly qualified and I am quite normal in my wisdom with the nature to depend and to rely on my staff members/colleagues and friends. Secondly, my wife was seriously ill during those days with the disease of muscle weaknesses due to which, she was unable to undertake day to day operations in the house as a housewife like cooking, washing, cleaning etc., Thirdly, I was not having any son and fourthly I was having three daughters who have been school and college going. So, I was also deeply involved in undertaking house affairs relating to cooking, washing, cleaning etc. and at the same time official duties were also being discharged. Accordingly, being Incumbent Incharge under the given circumstances and my being in nature to be soft with the junior or associates and to rely upon them, I was pulling on my duties as a mix. Under these circumstances, I relied upon Sh.M.L.Ahuja who was otherwise very active and intelligent than me and put my sanction on the loan application. Thus, it is the only my misfortune and turning point in the case because only this technical point has been caught by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority and the entire burden of the sanction has been put on my shoulders and HEAD without application of judicious mind that whatever it has to be pursued or read over, the same has to be between the lines. Not only this but I was also seriously discriminated that Mr.M.L.Ahuja was left scot free despite the fact that he has filled in the application, he has disbursed the loan, he has signed the consideration vouchers, he has got issued demand draft in foreign currency from the foreign exchange branch at Phagwara, he has remitted the remittance through draft by sending the demand draft in Australia to the Institute, he was neither charge sheeted nor punished knowing well that during this entire period, I was not even in India but in Abroad.

Specific prayer to the Appellate Authority
1. That as per charge, the sanction letter dated 15-10-2007 vide Exbt M2 has been signed by Sh.M.L.Ahuja and not by me. Thus, the Article of charge is directly attributed to Sh.Ahuja.
2. That the basic error in the assessment of findings by considering my sanction on the loan application as a sanction letter may kindly be rectified because application is a separate document vide Exbt M3 whereas the sanction letter is only vide Ext M2. Thus, the evidence has to be looked into properly to arrive at correct findings instead of manipulated findings.
3. That my sanction on the loan application as post facto may not be considered as a tool to victimize me and the material evidences to construe that who has virtually and practically and expressly sanctioned and disbursed, may kindly be looked into vide Exbts M2, M3 (d) etc.,
4. That it may also be seen that I have been discriminated because no action was taken against Sh.M.L.Ahuja who has filled in loan application, who has disbursed the loan, who has arranged demand draft in foreign currency from BO Phagwara, who has remitted the draft to the Institution in Australia, who has signed the consideration vouchers, who has signed the sanction letter, who has signed the LSS.
5. That a judicious and sympathetic view may kindly be taken instead of disposing the Appeal on technical grounds as it has been earlier done by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority.
Charge 1(A) (b) – He has provided false information to the competent authority for getting his sanction confirmed. It was informed vide his letter dated 23-11-07 that the loan is secured by way of lien on FDR of Rs.5.00 lac whereas no such FDR was available as security in the account. Further, no such FDR was ever issued by the branch. Bal. o/s in the loan account as on 05-08-09 is Rs.3,73.047.50.
Case of the defence
1. That the statement of imputation is not covered under Article of charge because Article provides that I had issued fake FDR whereas imputation provides that I had provided false information for seeking confirmation of action that the loan was secured by way of lien on FDR of Rs.5 lac which is not the charge. Further, when no FDR was ever issued by the branch in question then, as to how the allegation of issuing fake FDR could be sustained. Thus, the allegation is not proved being outside the purview of Article of charge.
2. That the findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority have been based on the Exbt M130/G which is investigation report dated 25-08-2009 signed by S.R.Garg, Internal Senior Auditor, wherein it is provided that the branch has falsely reported to the Regional Office that FDR of Rs4 lac for sanction of loan Rs.4 lac was held on record. For the purpose of brevity, item JB64 vide Exbt M130G is reproduced hereunder:-
“Item JB64 Suresh Madaan and Vishal Madaan for Rs.4 lac dated 13-10-2007
a) That advance has been made for diploma in hospitality management in Australia which did not fall within the vested powers of BM as the permission of competent authority (ZM) was required to be obtained. When the Regional Office raised query in this regard, the branch had falsely reported that FDR for Rs.4 lac held to secure the education loan whereas no FDR is on record.”

From the above, it is evident that I have no where been named in the observations that it was falsely reported by me. Branch does not mean that it is B.R.Mahi and it is to be seen in the light that who has written the letter and who has signed it. There is no evidence that I have written such letter whereas Sh.M.L.Ahuja has written a letter to this effect on 19-10-2007 vide Exbt M3 (a) when I was on leave and also was not in India but abroad. Thus, proper analysis of the evidence was not done and merely on the basis of suspicion, the allegation has been proved against me.
3. That with regard to Exbt M130 (g) which is investigation report, its author was not examined before the Inquiry Officer in order to afford me an opportunity of his cross examination. It is a settled law that when the author of the report is not examined before the Inquiry Officer then, the information provided in the report is only hearsay evidence because the truth in the contents of the report is subject to proof. The third person may confirm the signatures and the contents in a report but he cannot prove the truth in the contents of the document. In this case, the story is further interesting that the author has blamed the branch whereas the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority both have blamed myself and that too without any evidence by misconstruing that the branch means B.R.Mahi and particularly when I was not I India during the period 13-09-07 to 29-10-2007.
4. That the Exbt M3 (d) which is LSS for Oct, 2007 wherein lien on FDR of Rs.5 lac has been mentioned, has been prepared and signed only by Sh.M.L.Ahuja because I was on leave w.e.f. 13-09-07 to 29-10-07. But the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have blamed me to this effect despite the evidence against Sh.M.L.Ahuja and that too in his capacity of Incumbent Incharge.
5. That there is no evidence which may provide that I have provided wrong information for confirmation of my action. Whatever it was reported, the same has been prior to 29-10-2007 by Sh.M.L.Ahuja.
6. That otherwise, the scheme does not provide want of any collateral security in any shape or form relating to education loan upto the limit of Rs.7.50 lac

Conclusion
From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that whatever it was reported, the same has been by Sh.M.L.Ahuja with the direct evidence vide Exbt D3 (d) (e) which is LSS etc., and I have been unwarrantedly implicated in the case by presuming that branch means only B.R.Mahi knowing well that in the unratified Exbt M130 (g), I have not been named. Secondly, the Head Office has also provided in the Vigilance Manual vide chapter 8 para 9 to 11 page 59 and 60 that the investigation reports are also subject to proof and ratification through the examination of its author and for the purpose of brevity, the same is also reproduced hereunder:-
Vide chapter 8 para 9 page 59 of the Vigilance Manual (Relevant and operative text)
“Care should be taken by the prosecution to ensure that the statements of those witnesses, which are required, are those referred to in the charge sheet. (The investigation report as such should not be referred to or produced in the enquiry).”
Vide chapter 8 para 10 page 59 of the Vigilance Manual
“Hearsay evidence (statements of persons not called as witnesses but repeated by third person), though not acceptable, will need to be evaluated in the same manner as the assessment of any other evidence and relied upon only when justified.”
Vide chapter 8 para 11 page 59-60 of the Vigilance Manual
“Written statements by persons are not admissible unless the defence has been given an opportunity to cross examine the persons on their respective statements. If the Presenting Officer expects to rely on these statements recorded prior to the enquiry, he must produce these persons at the enquiry to depose the facts in those statements.”
In view of the above, neither the Exbt M130 (g) is proved nor it has named me as erring official nor the loan was sanctioned by me nor it was reported by me and signed in the LSS for the month of Oct, 2007 nor the charge is proved against me whereas Presenting Officer and Disciplinary Authority both have committed a basic error when the charge has been proved against me on the basis of no evidence but based on suspicion, conjecture and surmises.
Charge I (B-i) – Sh.Mahi has issued fake certificate dated 11-02-2009 conveying sanction of education loan of Rs.14 lac and overdraft limit of Rs.13.50 lac favouring Smt.Tanudeep Kaur, Sukhwinder Singh and Baljeet Singh whereas no such education loan and overdraft limit was sanctioned in the books of the branch.
Case of the defence
1. That this charge has not been proved by the Inquiry Officer but the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in terms of Regulation 7 (2) of D & A Regulations, 1977 through the impugned orders dated 06-07-2011 without issuing a show cause notice to me for inviting of my representation. Since the procedure so adopted by the Disciplinary Authority is not known either to the Law or to the said Regulation, therefore, the impugned orders in question are vitiated being illegal and on this short ground alone, the order of the Disciplinary Authority is not liable to be sustained.

Charge I (B-II) – During the course of investigation in the matter referred B(i) above through Sh.G.L.Sharma, Sr.Manager, BO Mahilgelan one Sh.Parveen of M/s Visionway, Nawashahr has given in writing to Sh.G.L.Sharma that Sh.Mahi charged 4% as bribe for the total amount of sanction letters handed over by him to Sh.Parveen.
Case of the defence
1. That this charge has not been proved by the Inquiry Officer but the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in terms of Regulation 7 (2) of D & A Regulations, 1977 through the impugned orders dated 06-07-2011 without issuing a show cause notice to me for inviting of my representation. Since the procedure so adopted by the Disciplinary Authority is not known either to the Law or to the said Regulation, therefore, the impugned orders in question are vitiated being illegal and on this short ground alone, the order of the Disciplinary Authority is not liable to be sustained.
Charge I(C) – Australian High Commission, New Delhi asked for verification of the FD account No.PR2076 issued on the leaf with printed Sr.No.SVQ949341 of Rs.25 lac by BO Usmanpur in favour of Smt.Shashi Verma W/o Sh.Love Kishore Verma. On perusal of the record, it has been found that Sh.Mahi has issued the fake FDR, the original leaf of which bearing Sr.No.SVQ949341 is still in the custody of the branch and no such FDR has been issued by the branch.
Case of the defence
1. That this charge has not been proved by the Inquiry Officer but the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in terms of Regulation 7 (2) of D & A Regulations, 1977 through the impugned orders dated 06-07-2011 without issuing a show cause notice to me for inviting of my representation. Since the procedure so adopted by the Disciplinary Authority is not known either to the Law or to the said Regulation, therefore, the impugned orders in question are vitiated being illegal and on this short ground alone, the order of the Disciplinary Authority is not liable to be sustained.
Charge I (D) – Sh.Mahi has issued two fake sanction letters dated 13-01-2008, first for sanction of education loan of Rs.6.50 lac for pursuing diploma course at New Zealand and second issued for sanction of OD limit of Rs.3.50 lac both in favour of Mrs.Prabhjot Kaur D/o Sh.Devinder Singh against the security of equitable mortgage of residential house, whereas no such education loan has been sanctioned in the books of the bank in favour of Mrs.Prabhjot Kaur and also no eq.mort.of house has been created in favour of the bank.
Case of the defence
1. That this charge has not been proved by the Inquiry Officer but the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in terms of Regulation 7 (2) of D & A Regulations, 1977 through the impugned orders dated 06-07-2011 without issuing a show cause notice to me for inviting of my representation. Since the procedure so adopted by the Disciplinary Authority is not known either to the Law or to the said Regulation, therefore, the impugned orders in question are vitiated being illegal and on this short ground alone, the order of the Disciplinary Authority is not liable to be sustained.
In support of my defence case that while disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority, separate notice is required to the delinquent before passing the final order of punishment, otherwise the final order would be infructuous, vitiated being illegal, I refer the following landmark judgements:-
- That in the case of Punjab National Bank V/s K.K.Verma 2010 – IV – LLJ -569 (SC), it was upheld that when enquiry report not furnished to the officer and reasons for Disciplinary Authority differing from Inquiry Officer, not given then, order interfering with removal of officer from service, held not erroneous. Enquiry report and reasons for Disciplinary Authority different from enquiry officer have to be furnished to the delinquent employee before finding of guilt was arrived at. Thereafter, it was provided that the enquiry report and reasons for Disciplinary Authority differing from Inquiry Officer have to be furnished to the delinquent employee before finding of guilt was arrived at.
- That in the case of Rishipal Singh V/s Union of India 2011 (2) SCT 88 (Delhi High Court( (DB) decided on 26-03-2010, it was upheld that Disciplinary Authority is required to record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give an opportunity to CO to represent before record its finding. An opportunity of making representation offered after the Disciplinary Authority had made up its mind, would be violative of the principles of natural justice and meaningless in the eyes of law. The representation or submissions which was invited by respondents was against the findings of guilt and not against the tentative disagreement with the enquiry report. Impugned orders set aside, unsustainable and the petition is allowed vide para 16, 18, 20 and 21. While delivering the judgement, the following cases of the SC were also referred:-
- Punjab National Bank V/s Kunj Bihari Mirshra 1998 (3) SCT 833 (SC)
- Yogi Nath D.Bagde V/s State of Maharashtra 1999 (4) SCT 403 (SC)
- Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad V/s B.Karunakar 1994 (1) SCT 319 SC

Charge I (E) – He has sanctioned education loan of Rs.7 lac on 10-06-2007 to Smt.Taranjit Pabla and Neelam against the security of mortgage of residential house property worth Rs.45,28,943/-and has issued the education loan sanction letter to Sh.Taranjit Pabla whereas no mortgage of house has been created in favour of the bank and he has got confirmed his action from the then Senior Regional Manager, Jalandhar giving false information of creation of eq.mortgage.
Findings of the Inquiry Officer
Under this charge, the Inquiry Officer has proved to the extent that the equitable mortgage of the house was not created whereas the charge that the action was got confirmed by giving false information, the same has not been proved. For the purpose of brevity, the exact findings of the Inquiry Officer are reproduced hereunder: (relevant and operative text only)
“He has issued the education loan sanction letter to Sh.Taranjit Pabla whereas no mortgage of house has been created in favour of the bank. Charge is proved to this extent.
But the remaining part of charge that he has got confirmed his action from the then Senior Regional Manager, Jalandhar by giving false information of creation of eq.mort. is not proved.”
Case of the defence
1. That the charge is not covered under Article of charge-I because it provides that I had issued a sanction letter of education loan whereas the imputation provides that equitable mortgage was not done. Thus, the charge is not proved on this short ground alone.
2. That the allegation has been proved on the basis of Exbt M130 (k) which is investigation report dated 25-08-09 vide item No.B wherein it has been mentioned that no mortgage has been created. Thus, it is a hearsay evidence and in order to prove the charge, the original record of the equitable mortgage register was not adduced on the record of enquiry. That the Exbt M130 (k) has not been ratified document because the author of this report was not examined for providing me an opportunity of his cross examination. It is a settled law that an investigation report without examination of its author on the record of enquiry is a hearsay evidence but not a ratified document because the other third person may confirm the signatures and the contents in the report but he cannot prove the truth in the contents of the said report. In this case also, no witness has confirmed about the truth in the contents of the report but only signatures. Moreover, no annexures were enclosed with the investigation report as an evidence. Thus, it has been a wrong approach when the charge has been proved on the basis of this hearsay evidence instead of original evidence.
3. That while preparing the proposal in terms of Exbt M10 (b-m), there was no condition to create the equitable mortgage because there have been sufficient liquid cash assets under bank’s lien to secure the loan despite the relevant fact that the bank has not stipulated any condition to obtain collateral security in terms of education loan upto a limit of Rs.7.50 lac.
4. That the house was already mortgaged in a different case whereas the letter of continuity duly obtained was not made availab.e However, the title deed throughout remained in possession of the bank.
5. That the loan was further secured from the proceeds of FDR dated 17-04-2007 for Rs.1 lac, 21-03-2007 for Rs.95,000/-, 21-03-07 Rs.95,000/- total amounting to Rs.2,90,000/- and thereafter also lien on the SF proceeds in the account No.3500000106032945 wherein a sum of Rs.4.50 lac was outstanding throughout, in terms of Exbt D13 (a) and D13(c). Thus, there was a liquid cash with the bank to the tune of Rs.7.40 lac against loan of Rs.7.00 lac.
6. That the said loan account was finally closed on 28-10-2009 vide Exbt M88 through the proceeds of FDRs amounting to Rs.2.90 lac and a sum of Rs.4.50 lac lying throughout in SF account. Thus, there is no issue in the charge sheet to prove the allegation that EM was not created when the account has already been closed on 28-10-09 from the liquid assets under bank’s lien.

Extenuating grounds
1. That the charge of not creating EM has been proved on 18-11-2010 when the account was already closed on 28-10-2009 from the FDRs and SF proceeds which have been under bank’s lien.
2. That the amount of loan Rs.7 lac was fully secured against the value principal amount of FDRs Rs.2.90 lac vide Exbt D13(a) and o/s in SF account Rs.4.50 lac vide Exbt D13(c) being both the maturity proceeds under bank’s lien to the extent of Rs.7.40 lac (face value)
3. That without any apprehended or actual loss at any stage/time, the harsh, disproportionate and shocking punishment has been inflicted upon.
Charge I (F) - As per the scheme for education loan, the branch nearest to the place of domicile of student was required to consider the proposal but Sh.Mahi sanctioned the following education loans at far off places in violation of bank’s guidelines.
Findings of Inquiry Officer
That the Inquiry Officer has proved the charge with regard to the accounts cited at Sr.No.1 and 4 in the name Taranjit Pabla and Suresh Madaan and Vishal Madaan.
Case of the defence
1. That the charge has been proved without any evidence, without any document relating to domicile, without an examination of any witness thereby confirming the respective distance relating to the villages Barnala Kalan and Nawanshahr and thus, it has been a case of no evidence.
2. That the allegation has been proved on the basis of dead evidence vide Exbt M131 (a-g) which is nothing but a circular wherein it is not provided that the villages in question were situated at a distance of 15 Kms from BO Usmanpur.
3. That the gravity of the charge has not been significant because the loan account of Taranjit Pabla has since been closed on 28-10-09 from the FDRs and SF proceeds which have been under bank’s lien and that t

5.
Mon, 17 Jun 2013  Baldev Raj Mahi

Baldev Raj Mahi,
S/o Sh.Ram Asra, Nawanshahar (Pb)
Ex-Manager, Dated: 20-06-2013
Baba Deep Singh Nagar,
Saloh Road,
Backside K.C.Palace, Nawanshahr
Distt.Sahid Bhagat Singh Nagar 1. Through proper channel of Deputy General Manager(DA),
Circle Office, Hoshiapur
The General Manager, 2. Direct copy to Appellate Authority
(Appellate Authority),
Personnel Administration Divn.,
Punjab National Bank,
Head Office, 7, Bhikaiji Cama Place,
New Delhi

R/Sir

Reg: Supplementary submissions in the matter of my appeal dated 10.09.2011 under Regulation 17 of D & A Regulations, 1977 in the matter of Charge Sheet dated 05-10-2009 served upon me under Regulation 6 of D & A Regulations, 1977 by the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority), Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Hoshiarpur, against the impugned orders of punishment vide No.COH/HRD/I/BRM/2298 dated 06-07-2011, served upon me by the Assistant General Manager, (Disciplinary Authority), Circle Office, Hoshiarpur thereby inflicting the major penalty under Regulation 4(h) of D & A Regulations, 1977.

Respectfully, it is submitted to consider as under:-

That in my basic appeal dated 10.09.2011, I have sufficiently pleaded that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority has not been his own decision and also it was not free from interference and influence as well as pressure and as an advise and also a direction of the CVO, Vigilance Department, Head Office, New Delhi. “However, I had also requested the CPIO , Head Office New Delhi separately vide my application dated 18.07.2011 under Right to Information Act-2005 to provide the entire correspondence held in between the Disciplinary Authority and the CVO. The CVO has provided me the photocopies of the entire correspondence vide his letter dated 10.09.2011 and after perusal of this correspondence a new fact has come on surface that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority has only not been dependent but also a direction of the CVO, thereby further revealing that the Disciplinary Authority has also been misdirected from the office of CVO, Head Office, New Delhi and in the light of the same I submit as under:-
A. That the Disciplinary Authority vide his letter dated 29.01.2011 has proposed the punishment to the CVO to read as under:-
“ Reduction to five lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 5 years with further direction that he will not earn increments during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay in terms of clause 4(f) of P.N.B Officers Employee (D & A Regulations , 1977).
B. That thereafter a note no. VIG:V-4520 Dated 05.03.2011 was put up in the office of CVO wherein the CVO has recorded his observations to read as under:-
“ Some of the charges i.e. 1(A), II-a (1), d-I, II(b), I & II etc. which have been held proved have extreme malafide and moral turpitude issues. Normally, it would be difficult to agree for such officers to continue in the services of the bank when doubtful integrity and / or moral turpitude issues are involved. D.A may reconsider his views.”
On the basis of above observations the Chief Manager Vigilance Department, Head Office, New Delhi vide his letter VIG/ HSPR/4520 Dated 10.03.2011 conveyed the aforesaid advise of the CVO to the circle head to read as under:-
“ Some of the charges have been held proved and have extreme malafide and moral turpitude issues. Normally, it would be difficult to agree for such officers to continue in the services of the bank when doubtful integrity and / or moral turpitude issues are involved.”
C. That thereafter again circle head (Disciplinary Authority), Chandigarh Road, Hoshiarpur vide his letter no. C.O/HRD-1:DISC.:991 Dated 24.03.2011 wrote to the Chief Manager, Vigilance Department, Head Office, New Delhi to inflict the following punishment:-
“ Reduction to 7 lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 7 years with further directions that he will not earn increments during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay in terms of clause 4(f) of P.N.B Officers Employee (D & A Regulations , 1977).
D. That thereafter, an office note in the office of CVO, Vigilance Department, Head Office, New Delhi vide no. VIG:V-4520 Dated 13.04.2011 was put up wherein the CVO has recorded his observations to read as under:-
“ I find that the actions of the officer involves issues of moral turpitude / doubt about his integrity (In OD against FD of Zero Balance, Issuance of fake education loan / certificate for Australian Visa etc.). Hence, continuation of his services in the bank is not desirable. Please advise D.A he may be put down in scale-I at beginning of the scale only.”
But, while conveying the advise of CVO to the Disciplinary Authority, the revised proposed punishment of revertion in scale-I was not conveyed and concealed in various communications between CVO and the Disciplinary Authority.
For the purpose of brevity the photocopy of the office note No. VIG-V:4520 Dated 13.04.2011 received through CPIO, Head Office, New Delhi is enclosed as Annexure-A thereby proving that finally the CVO had agreed upon to revert me from MMG Scale-II to JMG Scale-I whereas this advise was not conveyed to the Disciplinary Authority. Had this proposed punishment been conveyed to the Disciplinary Authority, the D.A would have implemented the same instead of inflicting the harsh punishment of my compulsory retirement.
Thus, the fact remains that whatever the advice of the CVO was ever conveyed to the D.A the same has been to the extent that I should have not continued in the bank services and thus, the harsh punishment of my compulsory retirement was finally inflicted upon.
The Appellate Authority is therefore, requested to examine Annexure-A and to quash and set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement which is also based on a different fact that bank has suffered a loss whereas there has been no loss to the bank.

Yours faithfully

(B.R. Mahi)

4.
Wed, 15 May 2013  Baldev Raj Mahi

To
The Banking Ombudsman,
Reserve Bank of India,
Chandigarh

Sub: - Deficiency in services with malafide intension of staff.

With most due respect I am Gurbakhshish Singh R/o Bathinda, Punjab. I want to state that I have accounts in PNB Rampura Branch having account numbers 0403008700008631 (CC Limit) and 040300JK00000019 (Term Loan) with the name of G.D. Contractor & Suppliers and I am the sole proprietor of the company.
In the year 2011 when I was in need of money for my expansion plans I met Chief Manager of PNB, Rampura Branch and DGM, Bathinda who said that if I will do some personal favour to them then they will help me in getting loan from the Bank. In the month of October, 2011 I got my term loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) and later on in the month of December a CC limit of Rs. 95,00,000/- (Ninety Five Lacs Only). In return I gave them whatever they expected from me at that time. From that day (20/10/2011) till April, 2012 I was regularly paying back my EMI against the same, which is approximately 20 Lacs in Rupees. In fact in April, 2012 I paid EMI upto the month of July in advance.
But in the month of July and August Mr. G.S. Gandhok (D.G.M. PNB, Bathinda) and Mr. S.R. Garg (Senior Manager Rampura Branch) called me up in PNB, Bathinda Branch and asked me for personal favour in form of money. At the same time I told them that I cannot give them more cash or kind.
Afterwards I along with my friend met Mr. G.S. Gandhok (D.G.M. PNB, Bathinda) in the last week of September, 2012 and told him that I want to deposit my overdue amount till September 30th but he said that my account will remain NPA even if I will pay just double of my overdue amount. He said that I cannot do anything and there is no other solution for my NPA Account except I have to pay the full and final payment.
Sir, I really do not understand how my account stands for NPA. Is it ethical in my case? Even though I am ready to pay my overdue amount to regularize my loan.
Here I want to put this thing in your knowledge that I have more than 25 loans with different banks and all of them are regular. Infact all the banks feel privileged in providing loan to me as I am an esteemed client of various banks and have a very good credibility and track record in respective banks.
Over the top PNB Bank released a surfaesi notice in National Daily Newspaper [Tribune] dated 11.10.2012 alongwith my name. As a result of which my sanctioned loan of Rs. 4.25 Crore with another bank got cancelled and thereby my all business work got blocked.
Because of that notice in National Daily I got a setback as my social and professional image was hurt due to the same.
I kindly request you to look over or follow up the entire case personally and take proper action so that image of PNB will not get ruined in public.
A letter dated 23.10.2012 addressed to B.M. Rampura Phul and Copied to FGMO, Ludhiana has been sent already.
At last I want to tell you that I am along with my family is going through a Mental Dilemma because Senior Manager Mr. S.R. Garg is harassing us by coming to our residential place unofficially at odd timings and asking us that when we are going to deposit the money.
Finally, I want to quote this thing very strongly that I was and I am ready to pay my all outstanding amount till date to regularize my account. Kindly help us to come out of it by doing the proper justice.

Sh. K.R. Kamath (Chairman), 5 Sansad Marg, New Delhi
Smt. Sumita Roy (G.M.), Customer Care Centre, H.O. - 5 Sansad Marg, New Delhi
FGMO, PNB, Ludhiana
Sh. K.K. Yadav (D.C., Bathinda)
Sh. R.S. Brar (S.S.P., Bathinda)
Chief Vigilance Officer, Sh. Shiv Kumar Gupta, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi – 110066

• Sir we have informed all the dignified before 5 months members of Bank & State but nobody is responding & acting upon the respective problems. They are now trying to illegally possess my property where I and my family are residing. It is a request that installment of my standing amount should be restructured (as in amount should be decreased) of installment and I am ready to pay the interest and principal amount. Kindly minimize the amount of interest respectively.



Thanking You


Date : 16/05/2013 Sincerely Yours
M/s G.D. Contractor & Suppliers

CC: -
1. DRT, IInd Floor, PNB House, Bank Square, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh

3.
Mon, 11 Mar 2013  BALDEV IMAHRAJ

PERSONAL ATTENTION OFSH.GUPTA JI
To
SH.SHIV KUMAR GUPTA
CVO
HEAD OFFICE PNB
NEW DELHI
Dated – 11 March 2013
SUBJECT:
1) INQUIRY REGARDING DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS MORE THAN THEIR INCOME SOURCES i.e SALARIES OS SH.M.S.NIJJAR(AGM) AND SH ROMESH LAL BAJAJ CHIEF MANAGER (BOTH RETIRED),SH. CHANDER SHEKAR GAUTM MANAGER HRD,SH. V.K KHURANA CJIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL CIRCLE OFFICE (HOSHIARPUR) PUNJAB.
2) SH.G.S.DUBEY AND SH. N.K NIRANWAL BOTH RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER, PNB HEAD OFFICE NEW DELHI. SIR GUPTA JI,
I HAVE MADE COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID PERSONS BUT TILL-TO-DATE NO ACTION HAS BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID PERSONS ( PNB DISHONEST OFFICERS).
IT IS REQUESTED TO DO THE NEEDFUL .
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,
(B.R.Mahi)
(BALDEV RAJ MAHI)
S/o Sh.Ram Asra,
Nawanshahar (Pb)
Baba Deep Singh Nagar,
Saloh Road,
Backside K.C.Palace, Nawanshahr (Punjab)
Phone No : 09501302675
Email id – baldevmahi41@gmail.com

2.
Mon, 04 Mar 2013   Message By Complainant Baldev Raj Mahi

2) SH.G.S.DUBEY AND SH. N.K NIRANWAL BOTH RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER, PNB HEAD OFFICE NEW DELHI. SIR,
To
SH.SHIV KUMAR GUPTA
CVO
HEAD OFFICE PNB
NEW DELHI
Dated – 05 March 2013
SUBJECT:
1) INQUIRY REGARDING DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS MORE THAN THEIR INCOME SOURCES i.e SALARIES OS SH.M.S.NIJJAR(AGM) AND SH ROMESH LAL BAJAJ CHIEF MANAGER (BOTH RETIRED),SH. CHANDER SHEKAR GAUTM MANAGER HRD,SH. V.K KHURANA CJIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL CIRCLE OFFICE (HOSHIARPUR) PUNJAB.
2) SH.G.S.DUBEY AND SH. N.K NIRANWAL BOTH RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER, PNB HEAD OFFICE NEW DELHI. SIR,
1) The enquiry entrusted by CVC, CBI to CVO and other authorities to CMD Punjab national bank New Delhi is down marked to the officers of PNB. These officers generally give protection to their subordinate officers by manipulating the records. Enquiry into the transfers, promotions and loans sanctioned may kindly be enquired into to know the irregularities committed by these officers. It must be brought to notice, how many loans have become NPA and how much financial loss has been done to PNB by these offices. The enquiry into these matters may be entrusted to the officers other than PNB officers.
2) IT IS requested that CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION HAS DIRECTES OR ADVISED YOU to make an independent enquiries into disproportionate assets of above mentioned dishonest officers .CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION GOVT.OF INDIA NEWDELHI has asked you to make independent enquiries in complaints numbers 27210/2012/Vigilance 3/19420 dated on 19/11/2012 , 24570,23205,194983/2012 Vigilance 3 dated on 23/11/2012,31593/2012/Vigilance 3 /198408 dated in 27/12/2012,17170/2012/Vigilance 3 /185839 dated on 31/08/2012,29289/2012/vigilance 3 /197228 dated on 17/12/2012,Conf/CFM/553/12/192442 DATED ON 26/10/2012 , 1204/BNK/39/193717 dated on 09/11/2012,29291/2012/Vigilance 3/197227 dated 17/12/2012,30939/2012/Vigilance 3 / 198543 dated on 01/01/2013,32530/2010/Vigilance 3/199419 dated on 09/01/2013 of CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION GOVT.OF INDIA NEWDELHI . ALL those dishonest officers sanctioned loans to borrowers, consumers, customers after making BRIBE while posted in different branches. BUT NO impartial enquiry has so far been conducted into THE MISDEEDS of those dishonest officers. 3)IT is requested to verify the assets i.e. RESIDENTIALS AND SHOPS/ commercials made by these dishonest officers after their physical verification on their place of residence.
4)Enquiry officers submit their wrong and fabricated report while sitting in their offices not visit the residence of dishonest officers. 5)BECAUSE NO impartial enquiry these dishonest officers do not get due punishment.. 6)IT IS submitted that central vigilance officer’s PNB is being appointed by CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI. CVO IS WORKING IN PNB BUT CVO YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE PNB OFFICERS OR MANAGEMENT. YOU are an independent AUTHORITY. IT is requested that an impartial enquiry should conducted by verifying the physical assets as well as their FDRS IN DIFFERENT BRANCHES,PNB COINS,PLEASE BROUGHT TO BOOK THESE DISHONEST PNB OFFICERS. 7)IT IS REQUESTED NOT TO DO UNDUE HELP of these dishonest officers. THE officers who help these dishonest OFFICERS should also be brought to BOOK .IF CVO CANNOT conduct an independent enquiry then should inform the CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION GOVT.OF INDIA NEWDELHI can conduct an independent enquiry at its own leve and officers of Central Vigilance Commission New Delhi.
Yours Faithfully
Baldev Raj Mahi
S/o Sh .Ram Asra
Nawashahahr (Punjab)
Baba Deep Singh Nagar Saloh Road
Backside K.C.Palace
Distt:Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar
Phone No.9501302675
Email – baldevmahi41@gmail.com

1.
Mon, 04 Mar 2013   Message By Complainant Baldev Raj Mahi

2) SH.G.S.DUBEY AND SH. N.K NIRANWAL BOTH RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER, PNB HEAD OFFICE NEW DELHI. SIR,