UTTAMCHAND J SHAH Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, which is pending before this Court practically since two decades, the challenge is against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-Bank against the petitioner, imposing a penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner has also challenged the action of the Management in not giving him benefit of promotion with retrospective effect, i.e. with effect from 1st June, 1982. The petitioner has also challenged paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9 of the Promotion Policy framed by the Bank, under Regulation 17 of the Dena Bank Officers' (Service) Regulations, 1976, on the ground that the same is unconstitutional and arbitrary. The petitioner has also challenged the finding of the Enquiry Officer, by which the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner has committed misconduct.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition are as under :-

(3.) As stated earlier, the enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in connection with his duty as a Branch Manager and he had sanctioned certain loans unauthorisedly. After considering various documents and after considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has specifically come to the conclusion that the delinquent could not establish the fact that he was vested with discretionary powers for sanction of loan to the parties mentioned in the chargesheet issued to him, though, of course, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that all the loan amounts, referred to in the chargesheet, have been fully repaid.