The order of suspension issued by the Joint General Manager was held to be illegal, incompetent, and non-est in the eye of the law, entitling the petitioner to full salary and allowances for the entire period between 10. 7. 1979 and the date of his dismissal from service.

TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) IN this Writ Petition, the petitioner calls in question his compulsory retirement from the service of the Respondent-Bank in consequence of a Disciplinary Enquiry held against him. He also challenges the vires of Regulations 3 and 24 of the Indian-Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976, (for short the Conduct Regulations) and the legality of his suspension pending enquiry. The facts in the background are brief and may be stated first.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was working as Manager of the New Timber Yard Layout Branch of the respondent-Bank at Bangalore. He was served with a Chargesheet accusing him of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations. The petitioner's reply to the charges was found unsatisfactory resulting in the initiation of a formal enquiry. The Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved. The Disciplinary Authority, then passed an order on 21st of April 1992 accepting the findings returned by the Inquiring Authority that the petitioner had allowed temporary over-drafts and clear loans far beyond his discretionary powers, and had acted in total disregard of the prescribed procedure for the grant of open cash credits and allowed the borrowers to divert the Bank's funds for acquiring fixed assets. It also concurred with the finding that the petitioner had failed to follow the norms and guidelines for purchasing Bills and had far exceeded his discretionary powers in that regard besides granting clear loans to salaried class even when he was not empowered to do so. A major penalty of compulsory retirement as per Regulation 4 (f) of indian-Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, was accordingly imposed upon the petitioner.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority which failed. A review Petition before the Managing Director also met the same fate.

( 4 ) DISSATISFIED with the above orders, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the same on a variety of grounds.

( 5 ) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Krishnaiah learned Counsel, strenuously urged that the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner suffered from a patent perversity in that even if the allegations made against the petitioner were taken as proved, the same did not amount to misconduct so as to attract the penalty imposed upon him. He contended that the violation of a general provision like Regulation-3 of the Conduct Regulations applicable to the petitioner could not constitute misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24 thereof, and that misconduct unless specifically enumerated by the Regulations, could neither be alleged nor said to have been proved on the touchstone of such a general provision. In support of this submission he placed heavy reliance upon two Judgments of the Supreme Court in GLAXO LABORATORIES (I) ltd. v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MEERUT AND ORS. AIR1984 SC 505 , (1984 )I LLJ16 SC , (1984 )1 SCC1 , [1984 ]1 scr230 , 1984 (1 ) SLJ229 (SC ) and in A. L. KALRA v. THE PROJECT AND EQUIPMENT corporation OF INDIA LIMITED.

( 6 ) MR. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent on the other hand submitted that the principle laid down in the two Judgments relied upon by Mr. Krishnaiah had no application to the present case and placed reliance upon the Judgments of the Apex Court in MAHENDRA singh DHANTWAL v. HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD AND ORS. AIR1976 SC 2062 , (1976 )II LLJ259 SC , (1976 )4 SCC606 , [1976 ]suppscr635 , 1976 (1 )SLJ521 (SC ) and in STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. v. RAM SINGH EX. CONSTABLE AIR1992 SC 2188 , JT1992 (4 ) SC 253 , 1992 (2 )SCALE76 , (1992 )4 scc54 , [1992 ]3 SCR634 to argue that even in the absence of an exhaustive enumeration of what would constitute misconduct, it was, legally

Click Here to Read the rest of this document