The court emphasized the narrow scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and the importance of fair opportunity for the charged employee to defend their case.

ORDER :

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 24.02.2009 and the consequent order passed by the appellate authority dated 26.10.2009 and the review authority order dated 18.03.2010.

2. The petitioner joined the respondent/bank on 01.11.1973 and was promoted in the year 1979 as Officer and subsequently promoted to Officer Scale II in the year 1992 and thereafter as MM Scale – III Cadre on 31.03.2005. The petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, Deopuri Branch. The said bank was Agricultural Rural Branch and the main activity was to finance agricultural activities and village knowledge center. It is submitted that a target of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) per month disbursement of agricultural loans was fixed in the year 2005 and that a target of Rs.18,00,00,000/- (Eighteen Crores only) towards the loan disbursement portfolio consisting of Rs.8,00,00,000/- towards the agricultural finance and remaining Rs.10,00,00,000/- towards other loans.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner performed well in so far as business of the bank is concerned, however vide letter dated 12.04.2006, the Credit Department, Regional Office, Raipur withdrew the petitioners loan sanctioning power. Explanation was called for from the petitioner as to why the loans were sanctioned despite withdrawing the powers. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted by the General Manager. The petitioner claims to have met with an accident 30.06.2006 and suffered with injuries which left him bedridden for two months. The petitioner was transferred to the State of Andhra Pradesh on 30.09.2006.

Articles of charge were framed against the petitioner on 11.06.2008 as follows :

(a) Failure to discharge his duty with utmost devotion and diligence.

(b) Failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity.

(c) Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank.

(d) Acting otherwise than in his best Judgment in performance of the Official Duties.

4. The Article of charges was enclosed with list of 72 accounts which were on the bunch of becoming NPA. An enquiry officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry between 25.08.2008 to 28.08.2008. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20.09.2008 to the Disciplinary Authority holding that all four charges were proved against the petitioner. Basing on the enquiry report the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 24.02.2009. The petitioner exhausted his right of appeal and review before the appropriate authorities of bank in vain. The consequent orders are also challenged in the writ petition.

5. The petitioner claims that the enquiry officer has not taken into account the explanation of the petitioner in correct sense and the disciplinary authority and the review authority have equally ignored the submission of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that out of 72 loan accounts amounting to Rs.572.52 Lakhs which were claimed to be on the verge of declaring as NPA, 44 loan accounts were closed and an amount of Rs.211.59 Lakhs. Out of the balance 28 accounts 20 accounts amounting to Rs.308 Lakhs are secured by standard assets and only 8 accounts are considered as substandard accounts and recoveries are under process.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sanctioning of loans is the primary duty and business of the bank. The business of the bank has to be essentially conducted through the staff of the bank led by the Branch Manager. Thus, framing of charges for discharging the duties and taking forward the business of the bank are with malafides and not relating to any specific act of illegal gain of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Regulation – 6 of the Union Bank of India Officers Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1976 relates to procedure for imposing major penalties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said regulation was violated