The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery of dues from a retired employee and the continuation of a departmental enquiry after retirement must be in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations, and the absence of such provisions may render the actions of the authorities illegal.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:

(1) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to produce the entire record leading to issuance of the impugned order dated 02.03.2009 Annexure P-1 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

(2) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2.3.2009 Annexure P-1 passed by the respondent no. 4;

(3) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to impose heavy cost upon the respondents.

(4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while rendering his services on the post of Senior Branch Manager was attached with Head Office, Bilaspur. On 15.4.2006 Lakhan Lal Kaushik and Baldau Prasad made a written complaint to the respondent no. 3 alleging that though at any point of time they have not taken any agricultural loan in their name from the respondent bank Ratanpur Branch, but they have been served with demand notice for repayment of agricultural loan, upon which preliminary enquiry was conducted and Shri K.K. Dubey, Senior Branch Manager, Masturi was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who vide its letter dated 18.04.2006 directed the petitioner and Shri R.S. Kaushik, Senior Supervisor (attach) with Head Officer, Bilaspur to submit their explanation. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of Laxmi Prasad Yadav and Vijendra Singh Thakur, as there were direct allegations of fraud and cheating against the said Laxmi Prasad and Vijendra Singh Thakur. The Enquiry Officer recorded the finding that the petitioner has committed grave error in discharging its duties in relation to the bogus loan proceedings. It was also alleged that the bank officials were involved with the outsiders in the sanction and distribution of bogus loan and forwarded its Preliminary Enquiry Report dated 4.5.2006 to the respondent No. 4. The respondent no. 4 in the light of enquiry report firstly placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 8.5.2006 and subsequently on 19.6.2006 issued a charge sheet framing the charge against the petitioner that he has committed gross negligence in discharging his duty with respect to the sanction of the loan to the fake borrowers, therefore recovery of the bank has severely been affected and due to the conduct of the petitioner, the institution suffered with gross financial loss, therefore, why the same may not be recovered from the petitioner. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner is punishable under section 57 (1) of Bank Service Rules. The respondent no. 4 proposed the punishment for the aforesaid charges as termination from service. Thereafter Petitioner was directed to submit his reply within 7 days from the date of receipt of the charge sheet failing which ex-parte proceedings will be drawn for termination of petitioner's service. The petitioner on 19.8.2006 replied to the charges framed against him. Thereafter the respondent no. 3 vide its order dated 20.9.2006 appointed the respondent no. 4 as Enquiry Officer who vide memo dated 5.10.2006 directed the petitioner to remain present before him on 10.10.2006 at 1.00 for Departmental Enquiry, in reply thereto petitioner vide application dated 10.10.2006 brought into the kind notice of the Enquiry Officer that as per the rules and regulations the competent authority should have appointed the Enquiry Officer by name and designation and also to appoint the Presenting Officer and such appointment order should have been sent to all the concerned persons and he has not received any such order issued as per the provisions contained in the Service Rules. Thereafter the respondent no. 3 rectified its mistake and vide order dated 18.10.2006 appointed Shri D.R. Thakur, Chief Executive Officer as Enquiry Officer and