Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.4.1984 passed by Assistant General Manager (Personnel Department), United Bank of India, respondent No. 2, imposing punishment on the petitioner of withholding one increment permanently and the order passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent No. 1, dated 15.4.1993, affirming the said order in appeal and the order of respondent No. 3 dated 24/28.6.1994, partly allowing the review application filed by the petitioner.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as clerk in the erstwhile Hindustan Mercantile Bank Ltd., Kanpur on 4th October, 1973. The liabilities of Hindustan Mercantile Bank Ltd., Kanpur were taken over by the United Bank of India on 22.12.1973. In the year 1975 the petitioner was posted as an officer in the Nayaganj Branch, United Bank of India, Kanpur. A First Information Report under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 (2) and 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was lodged by the United Bank of India with the allegation that the petitioner has allowed some irregular Bill Purchase Facility to one M/s. Suraj Bhan and Company. The petitioner was placed under suspension along with other persons against whom the F.I.R. were lodged. The police submitted final report which was accepted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner thereafter made representation to the respondent Bank for his reinstatement and payment of salary during the period of suspension.
(3.) The United Bank of India started disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner was given the chargesheet. He denied that he was guilty of any of the charges. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of negligence in purchasing the documentary Bills submitted by M/s. Suraj Bhan and Company. The receipt submitted by the Company was fake and there was many irregularities in the Bill itself and more particularly the transport receipt was submitted by a blacklisted Transport Operator. The Bank suffered financial loss of Rs. 1300. The Disciplinary Authority, respondent No. 1, considering the report of the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. He imposed the punishment of withholding one increment permanently. The petitioner filed appeal against this order before the Appellate Authority, respondent No. 1 who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.4.1993. The petitioner preferred a review petition before respondent No. 3. The review petition was partly allowed to the extent that the petitioner was permitted to withdraw 75 percent of the total salary as subsistence allowance during the period he remains under suspension. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition.;