JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:— Nagaraj Shivarao Kajagi, the petitioner in SLP No. 4415 of 1989 has challenged his compulsory retirement and in Writ Petition No. 1287 of 1989 he has questioned the validity of the direction dated 21 July 1984 issued by the Finance Ministry, Government of India. Since the questions raised in both the cases are interlocked, we grant special leave in the S LP and proceed to dispose of the same along with the writ petition.

2. The events leading to these cases may briefly be stated. In 1982, the petitioner was a Manager of the Syndicate Bank (the Bank, at East Patel Nagar Branch at New Delhi. He discounted a cheque of the sum of Rupees 50,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Madras, after obtaining, by phone prior approval of the Regional Divisional Manager of the Bank. The cheque was sent for realisation to the Punjab National Bank at Madras, but it was returned unpaid. The petitioner did not take prompt action to recover the amount from the person in whose favour he discounted the cheque. He kept the cheque with him even without reporting, to the higher authorities. In 1983, the Assistant General Manager of the Bank called upon him to explain why the amount due under the discounted cheque has not been recovered. The petitioner in his reply explained the circumstances under which the cheque was discounted. He has stated that the credit was given to the account of one Dr. N. Ramakrishnan who was a Senior Scientist in Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi but the amount was withdrawn by another person called A.. Chandrashekhar who is an officer of the Bank. He has further stated that A. Chandrashekhar has promised to pay the amount and. therefore, he has retained the instrument with him hoping that A. Chandrashekhar would keep up his promise. On 6 July 1984 a sum of Rs. 52,167. 15 was deposited with the Bank. A sum of Rs. 36,000/ - towards principal sum and Rs. 16,167. 15 towards interest. A suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 14,000/- out of the principal amount. And later on, this principal amount was also recovered and credited to the Bank.

3. However, in 1985 there was a departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The Commissioner for Vigilance Inquiry from the Central Vigilance Commission conducted the inquiry. The first charge against the petitioner was that when he was functioning as Manager, he discounted under his discretionary jurisdiction a cheque for Rs. 50,000/ drawn in the name of Dr. N. Ramakrishnan in order to accommodate A. Chandrashekhar an officer of the Bank or others known to him. The second charge framed against him, related to the retention of the discounted instrument with him from December, 1982 till January 1984 without taking/causing to be taken any action to realise the amount due under the unpaid cheque. It was also alleged that the petitioner made available undue financial accommodation to A. Chandrashekhar or others to the detriment of the interests of the Bank. He was charged with lack of integrity, honesty devotion to duty, diligence and conduct unbecoming of the status of a Bank Officer in contravention of Regulation No. 3(1) of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.

4. The inquiry was held as per the procedure prescribed by Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, (the Regulations). On 16th October 1986, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner. He has held that the petitioner has failed to. take any effective steps for recovery of the amount paid under the discounted instrument. He has kept the instrument with himself for unduly long period without even surrendering the same to the custody of the Bank. It was only after the Additional General Manager reminded him by letter dated 15 December 1983, the petitioner assured him that he would return the cheque which he finally did on 18 January 1984. The Inquiry Officer has finally con