Tara Chand
Vyas Vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority & Ors [1997] INSC 217 (24 February 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
The petitioner was imputed with the charges that while working as a Branch
Manager of the respondent-Gramin Bank, Khareri Brnach between March 17, 1982 to
August 8, 1983, he derelicted in the performance of the duties in making
payment of loans without ensuring supply of implements to the loanees and
deposit of adequate security from the dealers as a consequence of which the
respondent-Bank was put to loss. The enquiry officer found that all the
fourteen charges were proved. On the basis thereof, the disciplinary authority
found that the charges were established and imposed the proposed punishment.
Impugned order came to be passed, on appeal, by the Board. The writ petition
filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The Special Appeal No.1009 of 1996 was
also dismissed on October
4, 1996 by the
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. Thus, this special
leave petition.
Economic
empowerment is a fundamental right of the weaker sections of the people, in
particular the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, ensured under Article 46
as a part of social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble of the
Constitution; the State is enjoined to promote their welfare effectuated under
Article 38.
Distribution
of material resources to elongate that purpose envisaged in Article 39(b) is
the means for the development of the weaker sections. The banking business and
services were nationalised to achieve the above objects. The nationalised
banks, therefore, are the prime source and pillars for establishment of
socio-economic justice for the weaker sections. The employees and officers
working in the banks are not merely the trustees of the society, but also bear
responsibility and owe duty to the society for effectuation of socio-economic
empowerment. Their acts and conduct should be in discharge of that
constitutional objective and if they derelict in the performance of their duty,
it impinges upon the enforcement of the constitutional philosophy, objective
and the goals under the rule of law.
Corruption
has taken deep roots among the sections of the society and the employees
holding public office or responsibility equally became amenable to corrupt
conduct in the discharge of their official duty for illegal gratification. The
banking business and services are also vitally affected by catastrophic
corruption the disciplinary measure should, therefore, aim to eradicate the
corrupt proclivity of conduct on the part of the employees/officers in the
public offices including those in banks. It would, therefore, be necessary to
consider, from this perspective, the need for disciplinary actions to eradicate
corruption to properly channelise the use of the public funds, the live wire
for effectuation of socio-economic justice in order to achieve to
constitutional goals set down in the Preamble and to see that the corrupt
conduct of the officers does not degenerate the efficiency of service leading
to denationalisation of the banking system. What is more, the nationalisation
of the banking service was done in the public interest. Every employee/officer
in the bank should strive to see that banking operations or services are rendered
in the best interest of the system and the society so as to effectuate the
object of nationalisation. Any conduct that damages, destroys, defeats or tends
to defeat the said purpose resultantly defeats or tends to defeat the
constitutional objectives which can be meted out with disciplinary action in
accordance with rules lest rectitude in public service is lost and service
becomes a means and source of unjust enrichment at the cost of the society.
Shri
B.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that for proof of the
charges none of the witnesses was examined nor any opportunity was given to
cross-examine them and the petitioner has disputed his liability. As a
consequence, the entire enquiry was vitiated by manifest error apparent on the
face of the record. We find no force in the contention. The thrust of the
imputation of charge was that he had not discharged his duty as a responsible
officer to safeguard the interest of the Bank by securing adequate security
before the grant of the loans to the dealers, and has not ensured supply of
goods to the loanees.
It is
based upon the documentary evidence which has already been part of the record
and copies thereof had been supplied to the petitioner. Under those
circumstances, we do not think there is that any manifest error apparent on the
face of the record, warranting interference. It is then contended that no
reasons have been given in support of the conclusions to substantiate the
charges. The enquiry officer had elaborately discussed each charge and given
reasons which were considered by the disciplinary authority and reach the
conclusion that the charges were proved. So, had the appellate authority. They
are not like civil Court.
The
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2
