HARISH CHANDRA BAKLIWAL Vs. UCO BANK & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition seeks to challenge the order of penalty dated 30.3.1991 by which recovery of a sum of Rs.64,000 has been ordered to be made from pay or other allowances as may be due to petitioner to the extent of pecuniary loss caused to the bank on account of non-recovery of loan amount disbursed to six borrowers and the order dated 19.9.1996 whereby his representation there against has been rejected by the Zonal Manager.

(2.) Shri K.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the inquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner of the charges about negligence and thus did not hold him responsible for any pecuniary loss caused to the bank. Even then the disciplinary authority did not agree with the finding of the inquiry officer and by recording dissent therewith, it straightway imposed the penalty. Learned counsel argued that before recording the finding, no notice, nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Petitioner has represented against the order of penalty to the Zonal Manager of the respondent-bank, who however rejected the said representation on 19.9.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the money has been deducted only in the year 1996 when the petitioner submitted a representation to the Zonal Manager, and therefore, the petition cannot be said to suffer from any delay. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra-(1998) 7 SCC 84 and judgement of this Court in Sambhu Singh Vs. State & Anr.-2007 (5) WLC (Raj.) 566.

(3.) Shri C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed because it has been filed belatedly in the year 1998 after seven years of the order of penalty. On merits, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no provision in the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 for giving opportunity of hearing and notice of disagreement. In this connection, learned counsel referred to sub-clause (2) and (3) of Regulation 7 of the said Regulations, which are reproduced in para 5 of the reply by the respondents.