UCO BANK Vs. SAILENDRA NAMASUDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Katoky, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.K. Purakayastha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent (Writ Petitioner).

(2.) The UCO bank and their officers have filed this writ appeal to challenge the judgment dated 25.06.2014 (Annexure-C) in the WP(C) No.2933 of 2009, whereby, the Writ Court upheld the disciplinary proceeding and the guilty finding against the delinquent Bank Manager. But, considering the penalty of dismissal from service to be 'too harsh', the punishment was reduced to compulsory retirement with all monetary and pensionary benefits to the delinquent, under the applicable service rules.

(3.) At the relevant time, the respondent was serving as the Manager of the Tamulpur Branch of the UCO Bank. Noticing multiple fraudulent transactions in several SB accounts in the Branch, the charge memo dated 30.06.2006 was served under the Regulation 3 of the UCO Bank Officers/ Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Conduct Regulation). The nature of the three charges being relevant, they are extracted herein below for ready reference: