ASHOK KUMAR DASGUPTA Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge made in this writ petition is the order dated 22.08.2001 (Annexure XIII) by which the petitioner has been imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service pursuant to a departmental enquiry. The appeal against the said order was preferred by the petitioner on 05.10.2001 but the same having not evoked any response, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the same. The petitioner has also challenged the enquiry proceeding including the charge -sheet and the enquiry report. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows.

(2.) THE petitioner while was serving as Officer in the respondent Bank i.e., United Bank of India in the Regional Office, Dibrugarh, was placed under suspension by order dated 14.08.1990 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Thereafter he was served with Annexure -II charge -sheet dated 22.02.1992 under Regulation 6 of the United Bank of India Officer/ Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The charge -sheet running to 9 pages comprised of the charges of excess drawal, irregular sanction and disbursement of term loan accounts causing financial loss to the bank; irregularities in many loan accounts and allowing excess drawal as indicated in the statement enclosed to the charge -sheet; allowing fraudulent transaction in connivance with other officers of the bank; sanctioning of an amount of Rs. 70,000/ - to the concerned borrower in gross violation of rules and procedure and without obtaining the required documents; issuance of bank's cash certificate of Rs. 50,000/ -, Rs. 45,000/ - and Rs. 5,000/ - under SB Accounts of the said person etc.

(3.) IN support of the charges a detailed statement of allegations was also furnished. The petitioner without specifically dealing with the charges levelled against him with supporting allegations on which the charges were based, submitted his written statement of defence generally denying the charges without any specific denial of the same. For a ready reference the reply furnished by the petitioner on 25.03.1992 is quoted below :