The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, specifically Clause 4(1), and the requirement of a second show cause notice on the notes of disagreement, as well as the principles of natural justice and the role and functions of the CVC in public sector banks.

NILU AGRAWAL, J.

The appellant, who was the writ petitioner, has assailed the order dated 27.03.2014 in this intra-court appeal, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Assistant General Manager, Allahabad Bank dated 07.09.2007 imposing punishment of removal from service, which has been upheld by the Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vide order dated 14.11.2007 and reviewing authority vide order dated 15.12.2008, had not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge.

2. The appellant was the Senior Manager in Allahabad Bank posted at Patliputra Colony, Patna Branch. During his tenure in the said branch between 30.09.2003 to 12.06.2006, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in which allegation was that a large number of Cash Credit loans sanctioned and disbursed recklessly without pre-credit appraisal, by accepting forged/ fabricated I.T. returns and imposters were made guarantors to the mortgaged property. Enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer Mr. C.K. Pandey and out of the four articles of charges, three articles of charges were proved and with regard to article 1, which related to two charges; one charge was proved and second charge in article 1 relating to signature in one of the documents by one Baiju Singh/ Baijnath Singh was partly proved.

3. The Disciplinary Authority after going into the imputations and the show cause reply of the appellant passed order of removal from service in terms of Clause 4(1) of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, which was challenged by the appellant in review, but review was dismissed by the reviewing authority vide order dated 15.12.2008.

4. Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that since one of the charges was partly proved, the Disciplinary Authority did not issue a disagreement note and no second show cause notice was given by the Disciplinary Authority before imposing punishment, therefore, serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant. He submits that the interpretation or requirement of issuance of second show cause on the notes of disagreement has been mandated in a well established legal position declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra, since reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84.

5. Another argument urged by the counsel for the appellant is that the Enquiry Officer Mr. C.K. Pandey was himself one of the signatories of two documents M-33/1 and M-33/2, which were the counter signature of the said C.K. Pandey on the income tax returns of one of the borrowers on which the appellant is alleged to have granted loan to one of the borrowers, were not found to be genuine. He, thus, alleges bias against the Enquiry Officer and submits that in view of the Vigilance Management in Public Sector Banks Vis-a-Vis the Role and Functions of the CVC as per Clause 12.3.5 (xiii) on allegations of bias, the Enquiry Officer should have kept the proceedings in abeyance and referred the matter to the Disciplinary Authority and would only resume after he was advised by the Disciplinary Authority to go ahead, which was not done. He submits that having failed to adhere to the said legal positions the departmental proceeding stood vitiated, which the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate.

6. However, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Naresh Malhotra appearing for the Allahabad Bank lays emphasis on the fact that the Disciplinary Authority has not differed with the report of the Enquiry Officer, hence, no second show cause was required under the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees’ (Discip line and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. He submits that out of the four charges three were proved by the Enquiry Officer and with regard to article 1, which related to two points, one point was proved and the other was partly proved, which was only with regard to impersonation of one Baiju Singh/ Baijnath Singh in the do