- (1.) The Rule arises out of an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the following circumstances: The petitioner's case is that he joined the United Commercial Bank Ltd. on April 1, 1958 as a Probationary Assistant and was confirmed as an Officer with effect from July 1, 1961 on terms ' and conditions mentioned in an agreement dated Nov. 12, 1962. The petitioner completed his professional examination of the , Indian Institute of Bankers and also completed departmental training for three years to the satisfaction of the members of the staff and officers of the Bank. The petitioner was posted thereafter in various responsible offices and in Aug. 1964 he was posted as a Manager of Aminabad (Lucknow) Sub-branch. The petitioner by his hard work improved the working of the sub-branch which was appreciated by the authorities. The petitioner on account of his exceptional satisfactory service was posted in March 1966 as a Manager of Lucknow Main Branch which is one of its biggest branches. This was however not liked by K. L. Gupta the then Inspector of Branches who (was) also always trying to find fault with him and instigated one M. M. Batra, an officer of the Bank to make false complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner requested V. R.Desai (Respondent No. 2) the then Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank for being posted as Area Manager of the area. K. L. Gupta became apprehensive that he would be replaced by the, petitioner as Area Manager at Kanpur which was however never the intention of the petitioner. The petitioner caused expansion of the bank's business and secured prestigious public and other accounts in his branch for which he received reward and citation. He also tactfully managed the labour-employment problems. He became associated with many social and educational institutions in honorary capacity and in some cases as Government nominee. In recognition of his service and ability the Bank almost decided to appoint the petitioner as the Area Manager in or about in Lucknow in 1974. This created jealousy in a number of officers who were aspirants for the post.
(2.) On July 19, 1969 the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 commenced its operation, and the undertakings of the bank vested in the corresponding new bank, the United Commercial Bank, the respondent No. 1 herein and R. B. Shah was appointed the Custodian of the new Bank. The petitioner attended the Managers' Conference at Varanasi on Jan. 31, 1970 where, for securing the purpose of nationalisation certain guidelines to meet the needs of common men and small borrowers were given. The petitioner-drew the attention of the Custodian to the delay caused in sanctioning proposals for loan but the same was interpreted by the Regional Manager, K. V. Shenoy as complaints against him though the petitioner all through acted bona fide and in good faith. The petitioner went on. leave in Feb. 1971 when K. V. Shenoy at the request of the Officers like K. L.Gupta and M. M. Batra visited Lucknow. It was represented to Shenoy that the godown held by the bank was vacated for the interest of the petitioner and further the petitioner was having his house constructed taking advantage of his position as a Manager. After he joined his office from leave the petitioner was directed to explain the facts about letting the godown which was duly attended to. The petitioner started the construction of his house in May 1970 with his savings and by borrowing from private persons and societies. This was exploited by K. L. Gupta and M. M.Batra who too with a view to cause serious loss and injury to the petitioner hatched a conspiracy with Ravinder Seth and a false complaint was lodged in the name of fictitious person. The petitioner came to know (though the source was not disclosed) that the matter was already discussed by Gupta with Desai and both of them were biased against him with ulterior motive. There was some enquiry by the Chief Accountant in respect of some delay in payment by the Bank in its Lucknow branch to the Food Corporation for which the petitioner was not responsible and all these steps were taken to humiliate and take revenge on petitioner while the pettitioner's increment due on April 1971 was stopped without reason. The petitioner in Oct. 1971 was elected as General Secretary of the United Commercial Bank Officers Association and in that capacity he issued certain circulars to the members about outstanding issues which also caused annoyance to the management including Desai who became by then the Custodian of the Bank.
(3.) On Dec. 14, 1971 the petitioner reieived a letter issued by the Bank under the signature of its General Manager, charging him with various acts of omission and commission, severe dereliction of duty, wilful misappropriation of money, unauthorised grant of accommodation to parties, wilful and deliberate exceeding of authority, gross violation of bank's rules relating to its business and other irregularities and gross abuse of the position as Manager of Bank's branch at Hazaratganj, Lucknow. It is necessary to enumerate shortly the charges in seriatim as follows: (i) There was wrongful detention and failure to pay the bills of the Food Corporation of India on M/s. Venkateshwar Flour Mills during October and Nov. 1970 for which Letters of Credit had already been opened for amount of over Rs. 6.50 lakhs, causing damage to the reputation of the bank. (ii) There was wrongful withholding and later payment of bills specified during April and May 1971 for over Rs. 4.46 lakhs drawn by the Food Corporation on M/s. Venkateshwar Flour Mills by debit of Bill purchase account, while the head office was not kept informed of the position. (iii) There was failure to ensure that the stock of wheat against aforesaid bills paid by debit of bill purchase account was properly kept as security and instead the stock was kept with other stock pledged to bank allowing the Mills to avail double finance against same security. (iv) M/s. Venkateshwar Flour Mills was allowed advance in excess of its sanctioned amount of Rs. 5 lacs and that also in excess of discretionary powers. (v) M/s. Hanuman Engineering Works was wrongfully allowed to operate the Packing Credit Accounts as a cash credit account and the short falls in the main cash credit account against pledge of goods were allowed to be made good by improper debits, once singly for Rs. 1.96 lacs, from the packing credit account without coverage by export orders or letters of credit. (vi) The said firm was allowed advance against old bills outstanding for a period between six months to one year contrary to the terms of sanction. (vii) Though Aminabad Branch shifted to new premises in Feb., 1966, the Bank's possession of the same was retained till June 1969 and was later on allotted under arrangement made by the petitioner, to his wife and one Kalicharan, though later on the wife's name was withdrawn. Further the Bank's fans and fire extinguishers were allowed to be used for the benefit of Kalicharan.;