- (1.) THE orders impugned in this writ petition are dated 17.6.2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office, Lucknow, in his capacity as disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and dated 17.10.2005 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority rejecting the ap­peal of the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner was an Ex-Air Force personnel and selected in the service of Union Bank of India in the year 1995. While working as Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Azamgarh, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 27.10.2004 containing certain allegations constituting misconduct during the period he worked as Branch Manager, Nuruddinpur Branch, District Azamgarh. Disciplinary pro­ceedings were initiated against him in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Union Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations 1976"). After oral enquiry, a re­port was submitted by the enquiry officer on 16.3.2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) holding charges of irregular transaction, house rent misuse, irregularities in SCP loans and CC(h)-M/s Soni Batteries proved, charges of entertainment expenses, leave fare concession and DD-purchased in excess of known resources partly proved and one charge, namely, mid term academic allowance as not proved. He further held that the charges of failure to discharge duties with utmost devotion and diligence, failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank, acting otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties and failure to perform his duties with utmost honesty and integrity are proved. Copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner inviting his comments whereupon reply was submitted by the petitioner on 23.3.2005. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 17.6.2005 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner where against he preferred an appeal vide memo of appeal dated 10.6.2005, which has been rejected by the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 17.10.2005. Besides oral submissions, both the sides have also filed their written arguments along with various authorities relied upon in support of their rival submis­sion.
(3.) WE have heard Sri H.R. Misra for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan for the respondent Bank. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly raised four sub­missions; (1) Finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and based on no evidence; (2) The defence of the petitioner has not been considered properly either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority; (3) In any case, even if the allega­tions contained in the charge-sheet are treated to be true, they do not constitute any misconduct whatsoever, therefore, the entire disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction and (4) The punishment imposed upon the petitioner does not commensurate to the gravity of the charges levelled against him and, therefore, is arbitrary.;