RAJINDER LAL CAPOOR Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined the service of the United Commercial Bank as a Clerk on 28/3/1957. During his four decades of service with the Bank, the petitioner rose to be a Branch Manager. It is his contention that during his employment he had earned the appreciation of his superiors and his service for all these years was without any blemish.

(2.) A few days before his superannuation, petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 24/10/1996 wherein he was asked to explain about certain irregularities. One of the allegations against the petitioner in this show cause notice related to the sanction and disbursement of loan under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojna (hereinafter to be referred as, `PMRY') to one Paramjit Singh son of Chuhar Singh. The allegation was that the amount recommended by the Chairman, Task Force Committee had been increased from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.One lac. The petitioner filed a reply on 26.10.1996 denying all those allegations. Shortly thereafter another show cause notice was served on the petitioner dated 30.10.1996. Petitioner alleges that this was served upon him just as he was to retire on superannuation. In this notice, the allegations related to sanction of loan to one Satinder Singh son of Jagir Singh under the PMRY by the Branch office, Kohara where the petitioner was discharging the duties as a Manager. Petitioner duly replied to this show cause notice as well immediately on receipt of the same and denied all the allegations levelled against him. Petitioner contends that after his replies to the show cause notices, no action was taken and therefore the petitioner concluded that his replies had been found satisfactorily and the matter was dropped. However in spite of that the petitioner's retiral benefits including his Provident Fund were not released to him. On approaching the Bank, the petitioner learnt that his retiral benefits were not being released for the reason that though the aforementioned Paramjit Singh and Satinder Singh had been sanctioned loans of Rs.50,000/- each by the Chairman of the Task Force Committee, yet the petitioner had enhanced them to Rs.One lac each on which account the matter was being examined by the Bank. In this situation the petitioner submits that since he was in dire need of money, he asked the Bank to keep Rs.One lac as security in the form of two fixed deposits out of retiral benefits and release the remaining amount. Petitioner has also placed on record letter dated 14.5.1998 wherein the Regional office of the Bank at Chandigarh had recommended that the petitioner should be allowed his retiral benefits after retirement and no regular departmental enquiry should be initiated against him. However, in spite of this letter when even till November, 1998 his retiral benefits were not released, the petitioner was constrained to serve a legal notice for the same on 23.11.1998.

(3.) It is only after the service of the legal notice that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 13.11.1998 wherein irregularities in the sanction and disbursement of loans under the PMRY to Paramjit Singh son of Chuhar Singh and Satinder Singh son of Jagir Singh constituted the allegations levelled against the petitioner. A reference to these allegations shall be made in detail in the succeeding paragraphs. Petitioner further states that he was constrained to file Civil Writ Petition No.537 of 1999 praying for release of his retiral benefits in which notice of motion was issued to the Bank. After issuance of notice of motion, this Court directed the then Zonal Manager Shri R.K.Samaiya to appear before the Court in person. When he did not appear on the date fixed, the petitioner states, that this Court had ordered for the issuance of warrants but on the request of the learned counsel appearing for the Bank, warrants were not issued on an assurance that Shri Samaiya would appear before this Court on the next date which was fixed as 4.6.1999. Petitioner states that however Shri Samaiya did not take his appearance before the Court in correct spirit and shortly thereafter another charge sheet dated 12.7.1999 was served upon him.