S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 08.09.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal No. 174 of 2006, affirming the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court in CWP No. 1902 of 2001 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein challenging the correctness or otherwise of the orders dated 27.09.1999 and 01.12.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively, was allowed in part by converting the punishment of removal from the service of the respondent into compulsory retirement with effect from the date of superannuation i.e. 01.11.1996. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellant No.1 herein is a Nationalised Bank. It framed several regulations in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 19 (2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, inter alia, UCO Bank Officer Employees' Services Regulations, 1979. The Government of India launched a scheme known as 'Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana' (PMRY) with an objective to provide sustained employment to 10 lacs educated unemployed Urban Youth, the salient features whereof, inter alia, are as under : "a) The scheme would cover whole of the country from 1994-1995 onwards. b) The educated unemployed entrepreneurs would be given a subsidy of 15% subject to a ceiling of Rs.7500/- each for starting the micro-enterprises. c) The beneficiary would be required to bring 5% of the project cost as margin money. d) An eligible entrepreneur under the scheme could take a composite loan upto Rs.1 lac from a bank without a collateral guarantee project for formal sponsoring/recommending back to the branches for sanction." The Reserve Bank of India issued guidelines/directions to work out the modalities in respect of implementation of the said scheme to the Scheduled Commercial Banks from time to time. Pursuant to one of such directions, the Board of Directors of the Appellant-Bank in terms of a Circular letter dated 31.07.1995 authorized the Branch Managers in Scales I and II to sanction composite loans upto Rs.1 lac, stating : " During the last year, some of the Branch Managers in scale I and II did not have the necessary sanctioning powers to sanction and disburse the PMRY applications sponsored to them. This had resulted in considerable delay and Divisional Offices were required to process these applications and advice sanctions to those branches which could not dispose of applications at their level. To obviate this difficult situation our Board of Directors have recently vested the Branch Managers in Scale I and II with necessary sanctioning powers and the Branch Managers in scale I and II are now authorized to sanction compositors loans (both term loan and working capital finance) upto Rs. 1 lac in each case in respect of PMRY scheme sponsored to them. This delegation of powers has already been advised vide H.O. Circular No. CHD/SISB/18/95-96 Dt. 16.6.95."
(3.) RESPONDENT while working in the capacity of the Branch Manager of his Branch disbursed loan within the capacity to various persons whose names had been recommended by the Chairman, Task Force Committee under PMRY Scheme, 1996. For his alleged acts of omission and commission which included the purported irregularities committed by him in sanctioning and disbursing 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 letter was sent to you which was enclosed with our letter No. CDO/P/PER/97- 98/1881 DT. 14.5.97. Accordingly, we have kept Rs.50,000/- in the shape of FDR for a 4 years 6 months with our Kohara branch. The present position of the loan account of Sh. Satinder Singh as of 20.3.98 is balance outstanding Rs.71,064/- with overdue of Rs. 9414/-. Sh. Satinder Singh had deposited in the said loan account of Rs.50,000/- as instalments upto 20.3.1998 and the last instalment is due in June 2001. Sh. Capoor has since vacated the leased accommodation provided to him when he was posted as Manager at branch office Kohara and he has returned all the furniture provided at his residence less 4 regulators of fans and about Rs.2500/- has been claimed by the landlord as electricity bill pending against the said occupation which will be recovered from his terminal benefits. In view of the above facts, we recommend that Sh. Capoor should be allowed the terminal benefits after retirement and no RDA be initiated against him." Curiously, despite the said recommendation, a charge-sheet was issued on or about 13.11.1998. The articles of charges against him read as under : "1. Sh. R.L.Capoor had failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence which is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended. 2. Sh. R.L.Capoor in the 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) Regulations, 1976, as amended. 3. Sh. R.L. Capoor 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 UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended." ;