MAINAK ROY Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is against the order of the Disciplinary as well as Appellate Authorities in having awarded and confirmed the punishment of removal from bank's service which will not be a disqualification for future service.

(2.) Mr. Sarkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner makes three points in support of the challenge of his client. The first point is based on Regulation 19 of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Regulation 19 is set out below:

(3.) He submits, the charges brought against his client included allegations that the bank's fund had been put to extreme jeopardy which, therefore, brought a vigilance angle to such charges and disciplinary proceedings. He submits further, the point was taken in the petition and the bank had responded in its affidavit -in -opposition to purportedly contend that it had a guideline in place with regard thereto. According to Mr.Sarkar, such contention cannot be upheld since the regulation makes it mandatory for the bank to consult the Central Vigilance Commission which Commission was admittedly not consulted. He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Rajpal Singh reported in (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 216 in particular to paragraphs 13, 14 and 27 to submit that Regulation 19 of the said regulations had to be followed in cases having vigilance angle and when not followed, the act or thing done thereby was not properly done.