MUKESH KUMAR JHA Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking quashment of order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 06.12.2013 as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 01.09.2014.

(2.) For resolving the controversy involved in the instant case, the facts adumbrated in a nutshell are that respondent No.1 is a Nationalized Bank incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (in short the 'Act, 1970'). The service conditions of the officers of respondent No.1/Bank are governed under the Regulations framed under Section 9 of the Act, 1970 and the said Regulations are known as Union Bank of India Officers, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short the 'Regulations, 1976'). The petitioner was posted as a Branch Manager from 11.04.2008 to 09.10.2010 in the Gangeo Branch, District Rewa of the respondents/Bank. Thereafter, a memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 26.07.2012 (Annexure-P/1) in which it was stated that the reply to the show-cause notice dated 26.07.2011 submitted by him was not found convincing and satisfactory. It was further stated that the subsidy of Rs.64,04,750/- received from the Government Agencies were debited to Sundry Deposit Account of 105 beneficiaries without sanction of loan to them. It was further stated that in the account of one Mr. Deepesh Singh, the amount of subsidy was credited twice though the same could be allowed once only. The other allegation which levelled against the petitioner in the said memorandum was that he received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the amount Rs.2,00,000/- which he transferred to the account of one Mr. Santosh K. Kacher. Another allegation levelled against the petitioner was to the effect that he allowed purchase of cheques to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- by Mr. Rajaram Meena, the Assistant Manager of the Branch which were subsequently returned unpaid. The memorandum contained another allegation stating therein that the petitioner did not have proper control over the affairs of the Branch. It was further stated that the petitioner had misused the first floor of the Branch premises which adversely affected the image of the Bank. The allegation was also made against the petitioner that he had not withdrawn salary from his account and he was found in possession of the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It was further contended that the petitioner had admitted top-ups/bribes to the extent of 10% subsidy credited.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to submit written statement of defence within seven days showing as to why, the disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. Thereafter, reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 16.08.2012 (Annexure-P/2) refuting the allegations made against him and given a detailed explanation and alongwith the said reply, the petitioner had also annexed his earlier reply dated 16.08.2011. It is contended by the petitioner that as per Regulation 6(4) of the Regulations, 1976, the Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the statement of the officer/employee in response to the charge-sheet, is required to consider the reply and if finds it necessary to hold the enquiry, may order for institution of departmental enquiry but in this case, the Disciplinary Authority failed to record any reason for not accepting the reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner, therefore, the decision to hold the enquiry was illegal and contrary to the law.