R. M. YADAV Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 17 December 2004 by which the Respondents imposed on the Petitioner a major penalty of 'compulsory retirement' in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. This order is confirmed by the Appellate Authority as also by a further order of the Reviewing Authority, which are also challenged.

(2.) In the year 2003 the Petitioner was working with Respondent No.1 as a Branch Manager with the Agardanda branch, in Alibag District. The Disciplinary Authority issued a memorandum dated 30 October 2003 alongwith statement of charges alleging that the Petitioner has failed to discharge duties with utmost integrity, devotion and diligence and the Petitioner has failed to protect the interest of the bank and if the charges are proved would amount to breach of Regulations 3(1), 20(4) and 24 of Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (for short "the said Regulations"). The statement of allegations contained two Articles of charges. Charge No.1 pertained to five loan accounts. Without referring to the intricate details, the charges can be summarized as under:- Charge I (A) Loan account of Mr.Narendra B.Hedulkar:-

(3.) Alongwith the chargesheet, the Petitioner was given a list of documents alongwith written statements of the borrowers. The documents in respect of each of the charges were furnished to the Petitioner. As also a list of witnesses proposed to be examined on behalf of the bank was also furnished to the Petitioner. The Petitioner by his letter dated 11 November 2003 denied the charges interalia stating that except one account, the other accounts were in regular order. As regards Charge 2, it is stated that he has purchased four wheeler for his personal use and not for commercial use.