DILIP GUPTA, J. - (1.) BY means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.12.1990 by which he has been dismissed from the services of the respondent Bank and the order dated 9.1.1992. by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.
(2.) I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at length. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for certain acts of misconduct committed by him while he was posted and functioned as the Branch Manager of Laluli Branch, district Fatehpur. The articles of charge and statement of allegations of misconduct in support of articles of charge were served upon the petitioner through the memorandum dated 10.12.1988. The charges against the petitioner were as follows : '(1) He did not take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank, but in fact took such steps, as were derogatory, detrimental, prejudicial and injurious to the interests of the Bank. (2) He did not discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty and in fact did such acts as displayed lack of probity on his part. (3) He did not perform his duties with devotion and diligence. (4) He did not maintain discipline in all transactions. (5) He violated banking norms, rules and regulations. (6) He misused and abused his position as Branch Manager. (7) His assets are disproportionate to his known sources of income. (8) He demanded and accepted illegal gratification. (9) He manipulated/tampered bank records. (10) He did acts unbecoming of a Bank Officer.' The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence.
(3.) THE inquiring authority submitted his findings along with the records/flies of the enquiry. Based on his findings, the inquiring authority held all the charges except charge No. 8 as proved. The disciplinary authority after considering in detail the findings of the inquiring authority concluded that the petitioner cannot be kept in the services of the Bank in view of the serious charges proved against him and imposed the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner by means of the order dated 31.12.1990. The disciplinary authority noted that the following allegations stood proved against the petitioner : '(a) Mr. Baxi sanctioned IInd loan to certain borrowers to help him in adjusting their earlier loan accounts. (b) He sanctioned accommodation loans resulting in misutilisation of Bank's funds. (c) He sanctioned loan against Banks' norms to help borrowers to meet their margin money requirements. (d) He manipulated the Bank's record to cover up his act of commission and omission in disbursing 4 RTO Accounts. (e) He allowed impersonation and forgery in respect of guarantor of one RTO A/c. (f) He sanctioned 4 RTO loans to partners of firm M/s. Jai Int Udyog aggregating to Rs. 90,000 where shops were not in existence/bills fake. In the sanction proposal for Rs. 1.75 lac, he concealed the facilities sanctioned to the partners. (g) During the period from January, 1983 to March, 1986, the investment made by Mr. Baxi were equal to salary drawn by him.' ;