( 1 ) THE writ petitioner was working as Chief Manager with the first respondent. The petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 24. 10. 1996 by the General Manager. The petitioner preferred an appeal and that was dismissed by the Chairman-Managing Director by an order dated 26. 6. 1997. Challenging those orders the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner that he had served in the first respondent-Bank for about 38 years with all sincerity and devotion to duty. The petitioner was promoted as a Senior Management Grade, Scale IV Post i. e. the post of Chief Manager on 1. 10. 1986.

( 3 ) ON 2. 2. 1993, a chargesheet Was issued. On 4. 11. 1993, a supplementary to the charge-sheet dated 2. 2. 1993 was issued. On the basis of the charges the inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report but no date has been given.

( 4 ) MR. S. C. Aggarwala, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to my notice the details about the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer had given the summary and the same reads as under:

CHARGE I (a) Charge is not proved. (b) Charge is proved to the extent that party had just 98. 760 KW electricity power connection against the requirement of 400 KW. (c) Charge is not proved. (d) Charge is not proved. (e) Charge is proved. (f) Charge is proved to the extent that availability of the requisite margin with the party was not ensured. (g) Charge is proved to the extent that working capital facilities were considered on the basis of annual capacity of 9000 MT/pa as against actual installed/licensed capacity of 3900 MT/pa. Other part of the charge is not proved. (h) Charge is proved. (i) Charge is proved to the extent that availment in CC (Book Debt) was allowed without procuring inventories of Book Debts from the party. (j) Charge is proved.

CHARGE II (a) Charge is proved. (b) Charge is proved. (c) Charge is proved. (d) Charge is not proved. (e) Charge is not proved. (f) Charge is not proved. (g) Charge is proved to the extent that stock reports were not got prepared to ensure proper control on operation of Cash Credit (P) Account.

CHARGE III (i) Charge is not proved. (ii) Charge is not proved. (iii) Charge is not proved. (iv) Charge is not proved. (v) Charge is proved to the extent that charged officer did not ensure fixing of repayment schedule and instalments. (vi) Charge is proved. (vii) Charge is proved. (viii) Charge is proved. (ix) Charge is proved. (x) Charge is not proved. (Concluding Part) Charge is not proved. ARTICLE OF CHARGES Article I Charge is proved. Article II Charge is proved. Article III Charge is proved to the extent that pre-sanction safeguards/postsanction follow-up were not observed/exercised. The other part of the charge of jeopardy to Bank s interest is not proved.

( 5 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. C. Aggarwala, formulated the following points:

(I) There is no evidence to sustain the charges against the petitioner; (II) The conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority is perverse and no reasonable person properly instructed in law would come to the conclusion arrived by the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority; (III) The Bank itself had admitted that the petitioner had not committed any offence; 589 (IV) The Appellate Authority refused to give personal hearing to the petitioner which would vitiate the order of the Appellate Authority; (V) Very crucial documents which were necessary for establishing the case, were not furnished to the petitioner. (VI) The first respondent had committed breach of mandatory provisions in Regulations 6 (5) (iii) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employee s (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977.

( 6 ) I shall now take Charge No. 1 (b ). The said charge reads as under :-

CHARGE No. 1 (b) He did not ensure availability of requisite p