important point
In absence of any allegations of procedural irregularities/ illegality and violation of principles of natural justice, and there being only bald unsubstantiated allegation of mala fide, the disciplinary proceeding cannot be said to be vitiated.

judgment

H.K.SEMA, J.—

1.This appeal preferred by Bank of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.9.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.205 of 2002, upsetting the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

2.We have heard Ms.Neha Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. A.T. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.Briefly stated the facts are as follows :

The respondent was appointed as a clerk in the appellant-bank sometime in the year 1982. He was, thereafter, promoted as Junior Management Officer Scale-I in 1993 and was posted to Tamilnadu. After two years he was transferred to Hyderabad. While he was working as an officer at Secunderabad Branch during the period from 6.1.1996 to 30.3.1998, he was on deputation to Visakhapatnam from 22.02.1997 to 25.02.1997 for mobilization of shares. He submitted bills claiming travel expenses, lodging and boarding charges and halting allowance for the aforesaid period. It was found that the amount claimed by the respondent was inflated. A charge memo was issued to him on 26.03.1999. The charges levelled against him are :

“Article I “You were on deputation to Visakhapatnam Branch from 22.2.1997 to 25.2.1997 for which you submitted the TA bill on 27th February, 1997 claiming the fabricated travelling expenses, which are far in excess of the normal conveyance. You are claimed and submitted a lodging bill of Lodge Brindavan for Rs.500/- for two days whereas the room rent paid by you in the said lodge Brindavan for 2 days was Rs. 104/-. Thus you submitted a false bill. You had also arranged to incorporate boarding charges of Rs. 300/- in the bill issued by Lodge Brindavan although no boarding facilities are available in the said lodge. You have also claimed halting allowance of Rs.350/- which is in excess of the entitlement. Your aforesaid acts of claiming false and fabricated travelling expenses, claiming false lodging charges and also claiming excess halting allowance, if proved, shall amount to misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 of Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 in as much as you alleged to have committed breach of Regulation 3(1) of the said Regulations, which reads as under: Regulation 3 (1) Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer.

CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER TRIVANDRUM REGION AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY”

4.The respondent submitted his explanation to the charge, denying the charges. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Chief Regional Manager, MICR Centre Hyderabad, as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted expeditiously. The Enquiry Officer after examining the witnesses and exhibited documents from both sides submitted his findings on 13.01.2000 holding the respondent guilty of the charges framed against him. A copy of the enquiry report was also furnished to the respondent and after examining the written reply by the respondent; the Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 14.7.2001. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred Writ Petition No.14786 of 2001 questioning the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court on 20.7.2001 directing the respondent to exhaust his alternative statutory remedy by filing an appeal under Regulation 17 of Bank of India Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. By an order dated 30.8.2001, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the respondent and confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred another Writ Petition No.18372 of 2001 questioning the penalty of compulsory retirement. The learned Single Judge after hearin