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.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:45:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015