(1.) The petitioner was working as a Manager with UCO Bank at Faridabad when a charge-sheet dated 24.02.1997 (Annexure P-1) was issued to him under the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to 1976 Regulations). A perusal of the aforesaid charge-sheet reveals that it was proposed to proceed against the petitioner for imposition of a minor penalty as specified under Regulation 4 of the 1976 Regulations. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet on 25.02.1997 (Annexure P-2). Having examined his aforesaid reply, the Punishing Authority ordered the recovery of Rs. 1,28,042.82 paise in connection with charge No. 1 and a recovery of Rs. 574/- in connection with charge No. 3, on account of the pecuniary loss caused by the petitioner's negligence to the Bank, as also for breach of orders. For charge No. 2 the punishing Authority ordered the recovery of Rs. 95934/-
(2.) Dissatisfied with the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner, he preferred an appeal against the punishment order dated 26.02.1997 on 05.04.1997. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 24.12.1997 (Annexure P-6). For charge No. 2 the Appellate Authority substituted the punishment inflicted by the Punishing Authority with the punishment of censure. In other words recovery of Rs. 95934/- ordered from the petitioner on account of the second charge was waived off.
(3.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the punishment order dated 26.02.1997 as well as Appellate order dated 24.12.1997. The petitioner has advanced two contentions. Firstly, that the petitioner was proceeded against under Regulation 4 of the 1976 Regulations for imposition of a minor punishment without following the procedure envisaged under 1976 Regulations. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Regulation 8 of the 1976 Regulations, relevant part of which is being extracted hereunder for facilities of reference :