G ATCHUTHA RAO Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent Union Bank of India in initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner vide Charge Memo dated 16.04.2009 and the subsequent proceedings dated 28.5.2009 appointing the 4th (sic. 3rd) respondent as Inquiry Officer as arbitrary, illegal and without any authority of law.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner has retired from the services of the 1st respondent Bank on 31.08.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute that the retirement benefits of the petitioner have been settled and the pension to which he is entitled to has been sanctioned. While so, the 2nd respondent by Memo dated 11.6.2008 while alleging that the petitioner while working as Branch Manager at Tanuku from 19.5.2005 to 6.6.2006 had committed certain omissions and commissions with regard to sanction of Agricultural Term Loan in favour of M/s. Sri Satya Sai Fish Ponds, called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation for the lapses specified therein failing which the matter will be dealt with by the provisions specified in Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short, 'Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976') or Union Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. In response to the same, the petitioner gave a detailed explanation dated 6.8.2008 categorically denying the allegations.

(3.) However, the 1st respondent while observing that the explanation was not satisfactory and convincing, communicated the Articles of Charge dated 16.04.2009 alleging that the petitioner's failure to monitor the account had resulted in financing an unviable scheme and had rendered the account Non-Performing Asset (NPA) with outstanding of Rs.68.60 lakhs. It is also alleged that the lapses on the part of the petitioner constitute the following misconduct.