SUNIL KUMAR NAGPAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has instituted this 'Letters Patent Appeal' [LPA] in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Lahore, as applicable to the Delhi High Court, read with Sec. 10 of the Delhi High Courts Act, 1996, directed against the impugned order dtd. 26/3/2021, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Writ Petition filed by him bearing WP(C) No. 7401/2017 against the respondents challenging his dismissal from service by the Disciplinary Authority [DA] was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant was appointed to the post of Probationary Officer in the respondent No. 1 Bank on 9/7/1984. He was posted as Chief Manager at South Extension Branch of the Bank, at Delhi in June, 2011. The appellant was served with a memorandum by the Zonal Manager, Zonal Office dtd. 27/9/2013 alleging certain acts of omissions and commissions committed by him while discharging his duties at the South Extension Branch and also at the Khan Market Branch, to which a reply was filed by him dtd. 14/10/2013. Vide letter dtd. 22/10/2013, his reply was not found to be satisfactory and disciplinary action was initiated against him, simultaneously placing him under suspension vide memo dtd. 26/10/2013 which was followed by a charge-sheet dtd. 11/12/2013 issued by the Senior Regional Manager acting as the DA. The charge-sheet set out 17 articles of charge [A-4] but later by way of an addendum dtd. 21/3/2014, 10 additional charges were added to the existing articles of charge [A-5]. A Presenting Officer [PO] was appointed vide order dtd. 29/3/2014 and inquiry proceedings were initiated against the appellant, which commenced on 6/5/2014 and was concluded on 25/11/2014. Ultimately after considering the written briefs submitted by the petitioner as also the PO, an inquiry report dtd. 7/1/2015 was culminated. Suffice to state that out of 17 charges that formed part of the charge-sheet dtd. 11/12/2013, the Inquiry Authority held that the charges 1, 3, 6, 9 to 13 and 15 were proved whereas charges 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 16 and 17 were not proved, whereas out of 10 charges that constituted part of the addendum to the memorandum dtd. 21/3/2014, three charges were held to be proved against him.

(3.) The DA on 13/19/1/2015, addressed a disagreement note to the appellant concurring with all the findings of the Inquiry Authority except for charge Nos. 2, 4 and 17 inter alia also assigning reasons for disagreement. The appellant was afforded an opportunity to submit his written submissions within 7 days thereof, which were submitted by the petitioner on 17/2/2015, whereby the petitioner refuted the findings of the Inquiry Authority on various counts. The DA on observing the entire record of the inquiry proceedings vide order dtd. 27/3/2015 held that charges 1 to 4 and 6 were fully proved whereas charge No. 7 was partly proved while charge Nos. 9 to 13 and 15 to 17 as well as addendum charge Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 were also proved against him. In a nutshell, the DA found that the appellant had mis-conducted himself while being posted as the Branch Head by carrying out reckless financing, violating bank systems and procedures, acting in a manner which was unbecoming of a bank employee and failing to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and thus recorded the following observations: