S.H.A.Raza, J. - (1.) The face of this writ petition hinges on the reply to three questions, which have been posed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly as to whether the order of punishment is vitiated for the reason that the charges contained in the charge-sheet admittedly served to the petitioner, do not make out a case of dismissal inasmuch as the regulations under which the charges were framed, are invalid, secondly, that the charges are not based upon the imputation of the charges and the material sought to be adduced against the delinquent. Thirdly, that as to whether the action of the disciplinary authority while dismissing the petitioner, in spite of the fact that the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges by the Inquiry Officer, is bad for the reason that the delinquent was not given an opportunity to show cause.
(2.) With this prelude it is necessary to examine the factual matrix as set out in the petition. The petitioner, who at the relevant time, was working as Branch Manager at Court Road, Sa-haranpur, was suspended from service on the charges as under: 1. Sri V.C. Jain allowed clean overdraft to the firm M/s. Das Raj Ashok Kumar, Saharanpur beyond his delegated power of Rs. 2500/- to the extent of Rs. 69542-28 as on July 31, 1992 and failed to ensure the correct intimation about such over-draft to the higher authorities through F-1 statement. Thus he failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, diligence and devotion and he thereby contravened Rule 3(1) of Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976. 2. He allowed huge clean overdraft amounting to Rs. 99471/- to Sri Dalip Kumar son of Desh Raj in the name of a non-existing firm M/s. Dalip & Co., Saharanpur, from August 31, 1982 to October 6, 1982 and also failed to ensure the correct intimation to the higher authorities by way of submission of F-l statement. Thus he failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer under Regulation 3 (1) of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976.
(3.) He failed to intimate the higher authorities about the fact that his wife Smt. Bimla Jain and son Ajay Kumar Jain have entered into a trade business as cloth merchant in the name of the firm M/s. Ajay Textile, Trishla Jain Market, Saharanpur and he thereby contravened Regulation 6(2) of Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976. 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charges. Thereafter an inquiry proceeded against the delinquent.;