- (1.) BHARATI Sapru, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Srivastava and Sri K. L. Grower, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arun Sharma for the respondent Bank.
(2.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner against three orders. THE order dated 23-7-2001 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) which is an order of punishment by which the petitioner has been given a major penalty of "removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment". THE Second order is the order passed in appeal against the order dated 23-7-2001 and the appellate order dated 22-11-2001 confirms the order of punishment (Annexure-16 to the writ petition ). THE third order is dated 27-3-2002 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition), which is the order in review and also concurs with the appellate order. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 14-6-1980 as a clerk-cum- cashier in Punjab National Bank, after facing regular selection. The petitioner got promotions from time to time and at the relevant time i. e. , On 9-6-1997 when the petitioner was placed under suspension he was posted as Assistant Manager in the PNB in CBEC, Cell, Meerut. The starting point of trouble in the present case is the date 9-6-1997 when the Senior Regional Manager of the PNB issued an order placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect in view of serious irregularities committed by the petitioner which working as Assistant Manager Loans at the Branch Office Bombay Bazar, Meerut. Thereafter a letter was sent to the petitioner on 8-2-1999 by which the bank sought to recover the sum of Rs. 53,060. 58/- from the petitioner. This amount was sought to be recovered against the petitioner under several heads which were detailed in the accompanying letter, which are quoted below : (i) An amount of Rs. 1,000/- was in excess taken in the account of New Agarwal Printing Press for Insurance Premium; (ii) In the housing loan taken by the petitioner himself there was alleged misappropriation of Rs. 12,457. 58; (iii) An amount of Rs. 1,117/- exists as an interest on the housing loan of the petitioner from 15-1-1997 to 14-8-1997; (iv) The loan amount in the case of Hamid Ahmad an amount of Rs. 12,040/- was adjusted wrongly, similarly in the case of Rajesh Verma an amount of Rs. 9,100/- was adjusted. (v) An amount of Rs. 50/- in the sumptury head of one S. G. Awasthi is also shown. The petitioner sent a detailed reply to this letter dated 8-2-1999 on 19-2-1999 the reply of the petitioner is on record as '"annexure-3" to the writ petition. The petitioner admitted his mistakes categorically in the said reply and assured the bank that he would not in future commit any mistakes and perform his duties with utmost sincerity and devotion.
(3.) THEREAFTER a charge-sheet was issued on 25-1-2000. The Charge- sheet contained 25 charges and thereafter an amended charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 28-7-2000. The petitioner thereafter gave a very detailed reply to the charge sheet. The enquiry was then set in motion and the petitioner participated fully in the enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his report, the enquiry report was given to the petitioner and on the basis of the enquiry report the impugned order of punishment was passed on 23-7-2001 being aggrieved by the order imposing the punishment on 23-7-2001 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority who confirmed the order of punishment by his order dated 22-11-2001 against which the petitioner preferred a review and the review filed by the petitioner too has been rejected by the reviewing authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made lengthy arguments. The first argument made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the bank has framed rules to place an officer under suspension and a very elaborate procedure has been laid down under the said rules which is to be followed before an official can be placed under suspension. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed before this Court the regulation which states that once an order of suspension has passed against an officer the competent authority should take all possible steps to serve the charge-sheet to the suspended employee within three months from the date of suspension and thereafter the disciplinary action which is initiated against the suspended officer should be personally monitored by the competent authority/disciplinary authority so as to ensure that the same is decided within a time bound programme and expeditiously.;