M B MOTWANI Vs. UCO BANK BOMBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a apprentice Officer in United Commercial Bank, (hereinafter referred to as the "bank") in the year 1952. In the year 1974, he was posted as Branch Manager at moradabad Branch, U. P. , whereafter he was transferred to Calcutta Main Branch as an Assistant Manager. During this period, the petitioner claims to have served in different places including Mumbai and other important places. In the year 1976, the petitioner was posted back to Mumbai and was promoted as Senior management Scale No. IV Officer and was posted as Inspector of Branches with headquarters at Mumbai. During 1988 to 1990, the petitioner served as Assistant general Manager at Bombay Main Branch, D. N. Road, Mumbai. On 2nd July, 1991, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation of 60 years and was due to retire on 1st August, 1991. He was served with an intimation notice for retirement on 7th May, 1991, which is annexed at Exhibit-A to the Writ Petition. The same reads as under :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_660_MHLJ6_2009Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) HOWEVER, on 17th June, 1991, the petitioner was served with a Memo requiring him to explain irregularities and lapses relating to the opening and operation of certain accounts with the main branch during his tenure as head of the Branch, and on account of the alleged acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner, the account became sticky and a sum of Rs. 1. 30 lacs remained outstanding against the party from April, 1991. The petitioner was sanctioned a leave from 21st June, 1991 to 29th June, 1991 by the letter dated 18th June, 1991 whereafter the petitioner on 20th June, 1991 acknowledged the receipt of the Memo and prayed for grant of further time which was granted. The petitioner also made a request for inspection of the relevant files at the Zonal office and at the head office. Certain memos were also served upon the petitioner including the Memo dated 6th July, 1991 in relation to different accounts of the bank. The petitioner again demanded inspection vide his letter dated 9th July, 1991 which was not provided to the petitioner but another Memo dated 9th July, 1991 was served upon the petitioner. The General Manager (Personnel) vide his letter dated 15th July, 1991 while exercising power of the Competent Authority under Regulation 12 of the United Commercial Bank Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, passed an order of suspension against the petitioner. The said order of suspension, Exhibit-L to the Petition, was to take effect forthwith. Exhibit-L to the Petition which reads as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_660_MHLJ6_2009Html2.htm</FRM>

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the order of suspension was passed in a mechanical manner without any proper application of mind. Against the order of suspension, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority under the said Regulations and the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 7th november, 1991 rejected the said Appeal. This order, in fact, was served upon the petitioner on 7th December, 1991.