K L CHANDANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made In the present writ petition by the petitioner to the order of penalty passed against him by the respondents ordering his compulsory retirement.

(2.) A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under Memorandum dated 31.7.1990 listing certain charges which pertain to allegation of committing misconduct while sanctioning credit facilities in various accounts during the tenure of the petitioner as Regional Manager, Regional Office, Delhi. The petitioner submitted his statement of defence dated 14.11.1990. On perusal of the same the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied and accordingly a departmental enquiry was ordered to be conducted against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority appointed the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiry as the Enquiring Authority in terms of regulation No .6 of New Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982. Upon conclusion of the enquire, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on the a A legal ions vide his report dated 31.10.1991. The Disciplinary Authority, after going through the same ordered for remitting back the repor to the Enquiry Officer directing him to give his findings on articles of charge also. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter sent an additional repor t giving his findings on articles of charge by his letter dated 30.3.1992.

(3.) Copies of the aforesaid repor to were sent to the petitioner under letter of the Bank dated 11.5.1992 advising the petitioner to submit his representations. It is to be indicated herein that except for charges No-1 & 2 the petitioner was not found guilty in respect of the remaining charges by enquiry officer. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his representation as against the findings of the Enquiry Officer relating to the charges No.1 & 2 only, in view of the fact that the petitioner was absolved by the Enquiry Officer in respect of the remaining charges. The Disciplinaiy Authority, however, agreed partly with the findings of the Enquiry Officer namely in respect of charges No.1 & 2, but so far remaining charges are concerned the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings and by an order dated 11.8.1992 held that all the charges against the petitioner stand proved and ordered for awarding major penalty of compulsory retirement. It was also ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefits for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance paid/payable to him.