UCO BANK Vs. M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment[1] of the High Court[2] passed in A Writ Petition[3]. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the order dtd. 3/3/1993, passed by the appellant-Bank, wherein the punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the respondent no.1 and the order dtd. 23/7/1993, by which the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) Briefly the facts, available on record, are that the respondent no.1 was appointed as an Apprentice in the appellant-Bank[4] in the year 1952. In the year 1974, he was posted as a Branch Manager at Moradabad Branch. From there, he was transferred to Calcutta Main Branch as an Assistant Manager. In the year 1976, the respondent no.1 was promoted and was transferred to Bombay as Senior Management Scale-IV Officer. Between the year 1988-90, he served as an Assistant General Manager at Bombay Main Branch. He attained the age of superannuation on 2/7/1991 and was due to retire on 31/7/1991. An intimation notice for retirement was served upon him on 7/5/1991. Immediately, thereafter on 17/6/1991, the respondent no.1 was served with a memo requiring him to explain the irregularities and lapses relating to certain accounts during his tenure when he was heading the Bombay Main Branch. Vide letter dtd. 20/6/1991, he sought time and certain documents to enable him to reply to the show cause notice. A fresh notice was served upon him on 6/7/1991, to which the respondent no.1 again sought time and the documents for filing his reply. On 15/7/1991, the General Manager (Personnel) exercising power under Regulation 12 of the 1976 Regulations[5] placed the respondent no.1 under suspension and ordered that the respondent no.1 shall not be retired from the service of the Bank, despite attaining the age of superannuation under Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the 1979 Regulations[6].

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of suspension, the respondent no.1 preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 7/11/1991. A chargesheet dtd. 7/12/1991 was served upon the respondent no.1 on 10/12/1991 and he was called upon to face the departmental enquiry. The respondent no.1 filed his reply to the chargesheet, denying all the allegations as baseless. The order of suspension was challenged by the respondent no.1 by filing a Writ Petition[7] before the High Court, which was disposed of on 10/1/1992, with certain directions regarding the enquiry, while not interfering with the order of suspension.