http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: TARA CHAND VYAS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHAIRMAN & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.