RAM DHARI VATS Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order would dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th November, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.

(2.) The appellant herein was working as an Assistant Manager at the Narela Branch of Syndicate Bank, Delhi. While discharging his duties as such, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for various misconducts by issuing a charge sheet on 25.11.1996. The aforesaid charge sheet issued to the appellant contained specific and definite charges against the appellant leveling allegation that the appellant while functioning as Assistant Manager at Baghpat Branch abused his official position and sanctioned/released six loans amounting to Rs.60,000/- by committing various irregularities detrimental to the interests of the bank. It was also alleged in his charge sheet and the imputation of charges that the appellant also committed irregularities such as sanctioning loans without assessing the credit requirements of the party and without placing on record the past business pattern, anticipated business pattern, current assets and liabilities etc. and without obtaining no due certificate from the local bank. The appellant submitted his reply to the said show cause notice which was found to be not satisfactory consequent upon which the disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer conducted the Inquiry and on completion thereof submitted his report on 6.7.1998. In the said report the Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of 3 charges, namely, charges 4,5 and 6 whereas he held that the charge No.1 as partly proved, whereas the charges 2 and 3 were not proved at all.

(3.) On receipt of the aforesaid report from the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority on appreciation of the records held that he disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the charges 1,2 and 3, whereas he would agree with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the charges 4,5 and 6. The Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that all the charges against the appellant stood proved on the basis of the evidence on record. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, recorded his tentative view of disagreement and sent the same to the appellant along with the report of the Inquiry Officer requiring the appellant to submit his show cause. After receiving the reply of the appellant and on perusal of the records an order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 28.11.1988 holding the appellant guilty of all the charges and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was considered and dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 10.3.1999. The appellant being aggrieved filed a writ petition in this Court which was heard by the learned Single Judge and by the impugned judgment and order the said writ petition was dismissed for which the learned Single Judge recorded detailed reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. The aforesaid findings and the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge are under challenge in this appeal on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.