RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated November 13, 1997 by which the Zonal Manager Central, U.P. Zone, Agra of the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called the 'Bank'), imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service of the Bank and the appellate order dated October 21,1998 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of dismissal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. A further relief has been sought that a direction should be issued to the respondents to pay the post-retiral bene its to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner, who was working as a Manager in the Bank, was served with a charge sheet dated March 6, 1996 for committing certain lapses. The petitioner did not submit any statement of defence even though the time was extended on his request several times. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide order dated April 23, 1996 and the Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner. The copy of the enquiry report was thereafter sent to the petitioner for submission of his representation. The petitioner submitted his representation and after considering the same, the order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It was noticed in the order that the petitioner had engaged himself in reckless lending and thereby violated the lending norms and disbursed loans through middlemen. He also demanded and received an illegal gratification from borrowers and failed to keep the limitation alive in borrowal accounts and incurred expenses beyond his vested powers; and on account of his reckless lending, the Bank had suffered huge loss to the extent of Rs. 1,14,87,164.76 (Rupees One Crore Fourteen Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Seventy six only). The Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence the present petition.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. None appeared for the respondents.