9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the respondent to do complete justice to the parties. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bursing the loans under the PMRY Scheme, a show cause notice was issued upon him on 24.10.1996. On the eve of his retirement i.e. on 30.10.1996, another show cause notice was issued to him purported to be in connection with the irregularities committed by him in sanctioning and disbursing loans under the said Scheme, while working as Branch Manager at Kohara Branch of the appellant-Bank in 1996. Admittedly he was allowed to superannuate on 1.11.1996. He was however, not paid his retiral benefits. He made a representation therefor. Inter alia, on the premise that a sum of Rs. 1 lac could not be recovered from the two borrowers, the retiral benefits were not disbursed. The Regional Office of the appellant-bank, however, recommended grant of terminal benefits in favour of the respondent, by a letter dated 14.05.1998 addressed to the Zonal Office of the appellant bank stating: "In respect of the irregularities committed by Sh. Capoor vide our show cause notice dated 30.10.1996 served on Sh. Capoor had since been replied and in view of his request dt. 8.5.97 to keep Rs.50,000/- out of his terminal benefits as security against the loan advanced to Sh. Satinder Singh (PMRY case) and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge No.1 The CSOE had failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence which is violation of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 as amended. Proved as per discussions under allegations 1 & 2 Charge No.2 The CSOE in exercise of powers conferred on him acted otherwise than in his best judgment which is Violative of Regulation 3(3) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 as amended. Proved as per discussions under allegations 1 & 2 Charge No.3 The CSOE failed to take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all persons under his control and authority which is violative of Regulation 3(4) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 as amended. Not proved 8. The Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 27.09.1999, however, upon purported consideration of the findings of the Enquiry Officer as also the comments thereupon by the respondent, imposed upon the respondent, the penalty of removal from service. The appeal preferred there against was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 01.12.2000. Respondent filed a Writ Petition in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted by the respondent were trivial in nature. (ii) A target having been fixed to be achieved by the Appellant-Bank in respect of the PMRY Scheme and emphasis was laid upon every Branch Manager to achieve the same, it cannot be said that the respondent exceeded his jurisdiction in the matter of sanctioning and disbursing the loans. (iii) Only because the purpose for grant of loan was changed and recommendation of the Task Force Committee was not strictly adhered to, cannot by itself be a ground for imposition of such a harsh punishment, particularly when no ill will or motive on his part was alleged or established. 14. It is evident from the report of the Enquiry Officer that the illegalities which are said to have been committed are principally two being : 1) The proposal of the Task Force for grant of loan for Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of setting up a cream separator was altered to dairy and a sum of Rs. 95,000/- was sanctioned therefor. 2) Two cheques for a sum of Rs.19,5000/- and Rs. 5,000/- were issued in favour of Shri Paramjit Singh, who is the real brother of the borrower Satinder Singh. 15. The charges of forgery and interpolation also are said to have been restric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & Ors. [2006 (9) SCALE 194]; Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Ram lal & Ors. [(2005) 2 SCC 638]; Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. P. Kesavan & Anr. [(2004) 9 SCC 772]}" 21. The aforementioned Regulation, however, could be invoked only when the Disciplinary Proceedings had clearly been initiated prior to the respondent's ceases to be in service. The terminologies used therein are of seminal importance. Only when a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against an officer of the bank despite his attaining the age of superannuation, can the disciplinary proceeding be allowed on the basis of the legal fiction created thereunder, i.e., continue "as if he was in service". Thus, only when a valid departmental proceeding is initiated by reason of the legal fiction raised in terms of the said provision, the delinquent officer would be deemed to be in service although he has reached his age of superannuation. The departmental proceeding, it is trite law, is not initiated merely by issuance of a show cause notice. It is initiated only when a chargesheet is issued (See Union of India etc. etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman, etc. etc. reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010). This aspect of the matter has also been consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law. 24. We are not oblivious of the peculiar legal position obtaining in this case. A gross illegality has been committed by the appellant in initiating a departmental proceeding against the respondent but he did not question the same. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held him guilty of commission of some irregularities. He did not question the correctness or otherwise of the said order also. 25. However, the legal effect of the order passed by the learned Single Judge could be that he became entitled to receive all retiral benefits. Thus, in our opinion, it is permissible for him to raise all contentions in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in terms of the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the principles akin thereto. 26. Furthermore, the respondent has retired as far back as on 01.11.1996. At this late stage, we are of the opinion that we should not allow an illegality to be perpetuated which is otherwise apparent on the face of his record. 27. We, therefore, are of the opinion that although the learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court may not be correct in passing the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
