- (1.) In this writ petition petitioner is seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.11.1991. Annexure P/7 vide which petitioner was removed from service. A further direction is sought that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, seniority etc.
(2.) In brief, the facts as stated in the petition, are that petitioner joined respondent- bank on 5.1.1982 as a Probationary Officer and has since been confirmed. Petitioner has been working as Staff Officer with the Bank and has been posted at various places all over the country. On 9.7.1987, petitioner was transferred to the main branch of the Bank at Chandigarh. During the month of April, 1989 to June 1989 when petitioner was dealing with share applications of different companies, he substituted some shares in the name of his wife. Vide memo dated 7.2.1991 respondents decided to proceed against the petitioner under Regulation 6 of the Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Regulations) for the acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while he was posted as Staff Officer in the main branch of respondents at Chandigarh. Petitioner was served with the following charges:- "Article I That while attending to share application/money collection business during April, 1989 to June, 1989 without paying any share money you surreptitiously substituted the share application in the name of your wife in the place of the share application along with the share money received from genuine applicant one time each in respect, of the share issues of M/s. Kanoria Petro Products Ltd., M/s. Pearl Polymets Ltd., M/s. Punjab Power General Machine Limited and twice in respect of the share issue of M/s.Cadialla Hospital products Limited thereby wrongfully adjusting the share money received in each case against the share application in the name of your wife. That in the aforesaid manner, on each such occasion, you perpetrated a fraud on the Bank. You have thus failed to discharge your duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and you have also failed to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank which if provided will amount to breach of Regulation 3(i) of the Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976. Article II That, with a view to cover up the aforementioned frauds committed by you, you wilfully suppressed and/or destroyed the relevant files and papers containing the details of share money collected by the Bank in respect of the share issues of M/s. Pearl Polymers Ltd., M/s. Monoria Petro Products Ltd. and M/s. Punjab Power General Machine Limited. That in the aforesaid manner you failed to discharge your duties with utmost honesty, integrity devotion and diligence which is proved will amount to breach of Regulation 3(i) of the Bank of India, Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. 2. Breach of any of the provisions of the Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 shall be deemed to be a misconduct in terms of Regulations 24 of the aforesaid Regulations and will be punishable under the Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Regulations 3(i) of the Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 alleged to have been breached by you reads as under:- "Every officer employees shall at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity honest devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer."
(3.) According to the petitioner the allegations as contained in the charge-sheet were completely untrue but on the assurance given by the Disciplinary Authority that the matter would be closed with a light warning, petitioner sent his letter dated 31.7.1990 formally admitting the allegations against him. Petitioner was under the impression that after admitting the allegations, he would not be served with the charge-sheet but when he was served with the charge-sheet dated 7.2.1991, he submitted letter dated 18.2.1991 stating therein that he had alreadyth admitted the charges. In view of this admission made by the petitioner, no enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 who is the petitioners' Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 13.11.1991 Annexure P/7 imposed the major penalty of removal from service. A copy of the order has been attached with the petition as Annexure P/7. Petitioner is impugning this order in the petition on the ground that though the Disciplinary Authority had proposed that some increments of the petitioner be stopped but when the proposal was sent to the Vigilance Officer for his advice, he did not agree with this proposal but rather directed that the petitioner be removed from service. Petitioner's Disciplinary Authority again sent a proposal in August, 1991 to the Chief Vigilance Officer disagreeing with this directive that the petitioner should be removed from service and again stating the penalty of stoppage of increments be imposed upon the petitioner. The Chief Vigilance Officer rejected this proposal and again directed that the petitioner be removed from service. Respondent No. 3, thus had no option but to remove the petitioner from service.;