Judgment :

Leave granted.

The appellant herein was appointed as an officer in the Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 21.12.1981. He was confirmed on the post of officer [later on designated as Junior Management Grade Scale I (JMGS-I)] in the year 1983. On 18.12.1991, a charge sheet pertaining to the period from 1984 to 1990 was prepared against him. At that time he was posted as Branch Manager, Gajpur Branch, District Gorakhpur. The charge sheet alleges that while the appellant was posted at Bhatpur Branch and Gajpur Branch as Branch Manager, he had committed a serious irregularity in the acceptance/disbursement of loan (of a particular account holder). The gist of the charge was that he did not verify the genuineness of the claim made by the account holder for the loan in various small amounts. The loan amount was to be used by the account holder, who was an agriculturist, for improving the agricultural facilities on his farm. On the basis of those imputations it was alleged that the appellant has violated, Rules 17 and 19 of the Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Employees) Service Regulation, 1980. It is not disputed before us that the charge sheet was served upon the appellant on 7th January, 1982. Thereafter a regular inquiry was held against him. The inquiry officer held that the charge No.3 was proved. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority differed with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer. The charge Nos. 1 and 2 were also held to be proved against the appellant. At the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings on 29th August, 1998 the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment for three years and 50% recovery of the sanctioned loan amount in case the Bank fails to recover the same from the farmer to whom the loan had been grated. It appears that in a departmental appeal filed by the appellant, by Order dated 15th December, 1998, the appellate authority modified the order of punishment, by reducing the amount of recovery from 50% to Rs.5,000/-. The aforesaid order was communicated to the appellant on 7.1.1999. During the aforesaid interregnum, the appellant became eligible for promotion from the rank of Junior Management Grade-I to Middle Management Grade-II. He was duly considered for promotion by the departmental promotion committee, which was held in the year 1995. It is the pleaded case of the respondent-Bank, in Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed in the High Court (Annexure P-13 in the SLP), that the appellant was duly considered for promotion but he could not succeed on the basis of the criteria of seniority-cum-merit. It appears that another departmental selection committee was constituted on 5th September, 1997 when the appellant was also duly considered but not approved for promotion. This fact is also alluded to by the appellant in his representation dated 1.9.1999 sent to the Chairman of the Gramin Bank. In this representation, he categorically states that in the promotion process held in the years 1995 and 1997 he was duly considered but not promoted.

On 28th March, 1998, the Bank issued Circular No. 63 prescribing certain new procedures and penalties for the officers of the Bank. The aforesaid Circular notices the earlier procedure which provided that the officers against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated or an officer who has been punished in the recent past years or against whom there are any adverse remarks shall be unfit for promotion. It is further noticed that inspite of the aforesaid criteria, “at the time of deciding the competency of the candidates, they had been called for interview, not keeping in view the aforesaid facts. As per above, even last year, all officers were called in interview”.

The Circular further provides that henceforth the departmental promotion committee shall follow the sealed cover procedure which is applicable in the sponsor Bank. It is clarified that “this procedure will be applicable to the earlier sea