- (1.) WE have heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Misra appears for the respondents-bank.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Clerk in United Commercial Bank (a nationalized and scheduled bank) in the year 1973, and was posted at Rohtak Branch of the bank in the State of Haryana. He was promoted as Scale- I Officer through departmental examination in 1980, and thereafter as Middle Management Scale- II officer in the year 1997. He was transferred to Varanasi in the year 2000 and was posted their as System Administrator in the Regional Office, Varanasi. On 29th December, 2000 the petitioner was suspended by the Asstt. General Manager (Operation-I)/ the competent authority in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him for indulging in the acts of indiscipline and indecent behaviour in the bank premises on 23.9.2000. The suspension order was passed in terms of Regulation 12 of UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. A statement of allegations and charges dated 5.12.2000 was served on him. In the statement of allegations it was stated that on 23.9.2000, when the petitioner went to the General Administration Department and sat before Shri Krishanji Nagar, In charge of General Administration, Department of Regional Office, Varanasi, he suddenly started speaking incoherently in a loud voice abusing the Executives of the banks. He, thereafter, used abusive language and words against the Regional Manager during office hours in the office premises. The incident happened on 10.30 a.m. before Shri Krishanji in his office. The petitioner was charged on these aforesaid allegations for having acted, unbecoming of a bank officer, violating Regulation 3 (1) of the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976; using intemperate and unparliamentary language; failing to maintain good conduct and discipline, and thus violating Regulation 3 (2) of the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. He was also charged for leaving the station i.e. his headquarter without prior permission on which his action was also found to be violative of Regulation 13 (1) of the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
(3.) IN his reply dated 10.1.2001 the petitioner denied the charges as false, baseless and concocted, and made with the intention to coerce and cow him down with some ulterior motive. He denied of using abusive words. He assured that he has best regards for his superiors, and for the institution/ organization; that he was not charged with any allegations of misconduct prior to the incident. An attempt was made, to show his failure as System Administrator, whereas he had done his best to make the system functional. The e-mail application had stopped functioning due to non-connectivity with the STD since 31.8.2000. The floppies of BS-1 and 2, had to be replaced by deputing an officer from Calcutta. Due to non-browsing of e-mails, approximately 160 messages were collected in a period of one month. The "V Sat' connectivity was disturbed due to defect in dish-antenna. The petitioner further alleged in his reply, that he had followed the installation of hardware in different branches including Renukoot, Robertsganj, Mirzapur, Katra and Naini. The data entry system is parallel in all the branches. INspite of his best efforts in working, he was tortured and victimized. His pay was subjected to illegal deductions and LTC for the block period ending June 1999 was denied. He requested for reinstatement to end the torture. The petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry. The presenting officer produced four witnesses on behalf of the management. None of the witnesses corroborated the management story. After taking into consideration the petitioner's reply, that his defence he was being forced to surrender the post of System Administrator to appoint an officer of the liking of Shri G.S. Singh, the then Regional Manager, Varanasi Region, Shri I.M. Dwivedi, the Enquiry Officer/ Senior Manager of the bank, in his enquiry report dated 14.8.2002, found that none of the charges were proved against him.;