Dear Experts,
I have attached a lengthy file furnishing the entire investigation process pertaining to a composite vigilance case and the lapses of every authority viz., CBI, PSU Bank, CVC, at every stage/decision, who are empowered to make recommendataions and judicial decision. By their improper investigations and decisions, I have suffered a lot since 1994 and I am almost 54 year old now.
The writ filed in the high court is still to be heard due to various reasons.
Out of the three punished, the officer already passed away and the other one crossed the retirement date.
I am very much worried, whether I could any way get a relief atleast before completion of my 58th year.
As such, I sincerely request the experts to go through the attachment line by line as if it relates to your own case and suggest the remedies available other than judicial approach. Like lodging complaints against the authorities with Prime Minister's Cell, Parliamentary committee, Ministry of finance, Supreme Court etc.,
The brief of the investigations and the decisions thereon are as below:
1. A composite vigilance case said to have involved a Scale IV Manager, a Scale III officer and 2 clerical staff
2. Bank placed the Scale III officer and 2 clerical staff under suspension without issuing a charge sheet, but the Scale IV Manager was merely transferred.
3. The bank referred the matter to CBI. CBI had registered an FIR on the Scale III officer and 2 clerical staff, excluding the Scale IV Manager.
4. CBI recommended for RDA for major penalty to all the three members with an observation that the lapses on my part could at best amount to procedural violations cannot sustain criminal prosecution.
5. Though, CBI had observed that the department was looked after by an another employee and he was replaced by me during the second half of the relevant (transaction) period as per job rotation, the lapses on the part of the other member(s) in the transactions handled by him (them) during his tenure was not at all probed by CBI. Instead CBI had drafted the Articles of Charges and Imputations as if I was looking after the department throughout the relevant period.
6. Meanwhile, the Bank has referred the case to CVC and sought their first stage advice. CVC has advised initiation of major penalty proceedings only to the supervisory cadre.
7. Thereafter, the Bank started initiating disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge sheets. Though the Bank's own investigating officials had clearly pointed out, in their investigation reports, the serious lapses on the part of the other employees who handled the transactions prior to my tenure and during my absence in my tenure, the bank neither issued a charge sheet nor initiated any disciplinary proceedings against them. Instead held that the lapses on the part of them as proved against me.
8. The guidelines of the CVC in Para 10.2 of Special Chapter on vigilance management in public sector banks, i.e.,
Where a group of officers are involved in the same set of lapses in a branch/zonal office, having different disciplinary authorities, there could be delay in the processing of the cases and also differences in perception of the lapses. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority of the senior most officer in that group may institute and complete the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the different officers involved in the same case
were overruled by the bank and the bank concluded the enquiry/disciplinary proceedings by appointing different disciplinary authorities.
9. Upon completion of the enquiry proceedings, the bank passed orders reinstating without prejudice to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and orders to be passed, but the findings were not supplied.
10. Even though CVC has not given its first stage advice on account of the clerical staff and inspite of the fact that the bank overruled the guidelines of the commission in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, the bank now sought the second stage advice of the commission, grouping all as a composite case.
11. The penalty proposed by the bank was not accepted by CVC and CVC passed Office Memorandum to impose major penalty of “Dismissal” to all the four, ignoring the serious violation of the guidelines by the bank in conducting and concluding the disciplinary proceedings. In the office memorandum, CVC, just like that, commented that
“the commission also observes that the bank has initiated action against (name of the clerical) and (name of the clerical)without consulting the commission which is against the extant instructions of consultation with the commission. The bank is advised not to repeat such lapse in future.”
Instead of instructing resubmission of outcome of the disciplinary proceedings by appointing a common disciplinary authority as per Para 10.2
12. The first recommendation with the approval of CMD of the Bank for reconsideration of CVC advice on account of all the four members was not accepted by the commission, whereas while the CMD subsequently took up the matter on account of Scale IV Manager alone, the commission considered the second request violating Para 11 of Special Chapter on vigilance management in public sector banks which reads as follows:
If the disciplinary authority, in a case, does not propose to accept the Commission’s advice, the case may be referred back to the Commission, with prior approval of the Managing Director/ the Chief Executive, for its reconsideration. The reconsideration of the Commission’s advice is necessary regardless of whether the disciplinary authority proposes to take “severer” or “lighter” action than that recommended by the Commission. Decisions taken in a manner, other than that mentioned above, would be treated as cases of non-acceptance of the Commission’s advice and reported in the Commission’s annual report. As a rule, the Commission entertains only one request for reconsideration.
13. The Appellate proceedings revealed that
a. Charge 1: not conclusively proved
b. Charge 2: not proved
c. Charge 3: contributory negligence
and the Appellate Authority considered that the above charges are
1. Mainly procedural lapses
2. Doesn’t indicate intention to defraud the Bank.
and the decision of the Appellate Authority to reinstate the members with alternate major penalty
was not approved by CVC and a stiff major penalty was awarded as CVC’s OM.
14. A direct complaint lodged by me with CVC highlighting the serious lapses on the part of the other employees mentioned in the investigation reports has just like that forwarded to the Bank, who concluded that no action is required on the complaint.
15. Aggrieved with the above action of the bank, I further prayed the CVC to get the complaint inquired by its own officer under clause (d) of sub section (1) of Section (8) of CVC Act, 2003, which also had no impact and as usual the same was forwarded to the Bank by CVC.
