Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) IN this Writ Application, the petitioner prays for quashing the order/letter dated 20.10.1993 issued by the respondent No. 3, as contained at Annexure -5, whereby and whereunder, while referring to the pending charge -sheets dated 19.2.1993, Supplementary charge -sheet dated 1.01.1993 and also the charge -sheet dated 14.6.1993, the petitioner was informed that although he would be superannuating on and from 31.10.1993, yet, in terms of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Central Bank of India Officers' Service Regulation, 1979, the disciplinary proceedings would continue against him in the same manner as if he was in the service of the Bank until the proceedings were concluded and final orders passed. In other words, he would be deemed to be continuing in service only for purposes of the disciplinary proceedings until they came to a conclusion with the passing of final orders. The other portion of the order/letter assigned reasons for issuance of the same to the effect that the disciplinary proceedings referred to therein could not be completed before the date of superannuation and therefore it had to continue but such continuance would not entitle the petitioner to receive any pay and/ or allowance after the date of superannuation and that he would also not be entitled to payment of retiral dues until completion of the proceedings, save and except his own contribution to the Provident Fund. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay to the petitioner all retiral dues treating the departmental proceedings to be closed on and from the date of superannuation.
(2.) THE short facts which are necessary to be taken note of for purposes of adjudication of this case, are that on 11.3.1988 (as gathered from Annexure -7 at page 50 of the Writ Application), a Circular bearing number CO:88:113 was issued by the Central Bank of India informing inter alia that on account of the striking down of Regulation 20 of the Central Bank of India Officers' Service Regulation, 1979 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the '1979 Regulations') by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the said Regulation was kept in abeyance and an alternative regulation was under consideration by the Government. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued and submitted that on account of the fact that the Regulation was kept in abeyance and also in view of the fact that on the date of issuance of the impugned order, the same remained in abeyance, therefore the respondents could not have invoked the provisions of Regulation 20(3)(iii). This issue will be dealt with later. Now coming back of facts, it is to be taken note of that on 19.2.1993, a charge -sheet was issued which was followed by a supplementary charge -sheet dated 1.6.1993. Thereafter on 14.6.1993, by Annexure -1 a third charge -sheet was issued in relation to 5 (five) charges. Charge No. 1 was that the petitioner had not complied with the terms of sanction in relation to creation of equitable mortgage of. property belonging to one Soney Lal, Partner of M/s. Vastralaya before disbursement of Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 2,00,000/ - (Rupees two lakhs) as was stipulated by the Regional Office, Gaya. Without complying, the petitioner disbursed loan in violation of the procedure for disbursement. Charge No. 2 was that the petitioner had forged the signature of the Chief Cashier of Buxar Branch on the Financial Report prepared in respect of Soney Lal Jaiswal and Smt. Meera Devi, Partners of M/s. Vastralaya so as to make it appear that the report had been prepared by the Chief Cashier Shri Upadhyaya and on that basis, the petitioner obtained sanction with mala fide intention and obliterated the signature of the office copy of the Financial Report to cover up the forgery. Charge No. 3 was that the petitioner non -judiciously, and indiscriminately sanctioned loans to borrowers without taking adequate and proper security. He thus misled the Bank by not complying with the terms stipulated by him in the sanction and thereby failed to protect the interest of the Bank. Charge No. 4 was that the petitioner did not get the equitable mortgage of the properties of the borrower and the guarantors and also did not obtain Gift Deed executed from the borrower in favour of the guarantors as was stipulated by Zonal Office and thereby failed to comply with the terms of the sanction. Charge No. 5 was that the petitioner did not adhere to the procedure at the time of sanction and disbursement of the demand loan against fixed deposits and thereby failed to protect the interests of the Bank.
(3.) THE aforementioned charge -sheet dated 14.6.1993 (Annexure -1) which was framed vide Memo No. 137, was served upon the petitioner on 7.7.1993. On 7.8.1993 the enquiry in relation to the first charge -sheet and the supplementary charge -sheets dated 19.2.1993 and 1.6.1993 was completed.;