Bank officials accused of serious financial misconduct are expected to discharge their duties with utmost integrity and honesty, and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it shocks the conscience of the Court.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. The said order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.09.2004. The review filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Reviewing Authority vide order dated 27.04.2006. The petitioner has also challenged the aforesaid orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority in the present petition and seeks re-instatement in service along with all service benefits and continuity of service.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-cashier in the respondent Dena Bank on 15.11.1971. He was promoted to the post of Junior Management Grade-I on 01.06.1981.

3. He was placed under suspension from the service of the respondent bank vide order dated 19.02.2000, when he was posted as Accountant/Junior Grade Officer in Mayapuri Branch of the respondent bank. Later, upon application of the petitioner, suspension order against the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 06.01.2002, however, with the stipulation that the period of suspension shall not be treated as on duty.

4. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 11.01.2003 was issued against the petitioner by the respondent bank stating that the petitioner had unauthorisedly allowed temporary overdrafts and unauthorised cheque purchase facility by debiting the Imprest Clearing Account. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice thereby submitting that all the cheques were purchased and authorised by the Branch Manager and the same were reported to the Head Office by the Branch Manager of the Bank. Thus, the petitioner had not committed any irregularity.

5. Since the explanation as given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, it was decided to hold inquiry against him. Thus, charge sheet dated 08.04.2003 was issued against the petitioner on the following Article of charges:

"Annexure-I to the Memorandum No. NDR/PER/WIN/1100/2003 dated 08/04/2003

Article of Charges

During the period from June 1997 to January 1999, when Shri I.S. Suri was working as Officer, Mayapuri Branch, he is reported to have committed irregularities and acts of commission/omission by unauthorisedly allowing temporary overdrafts, unauthorized cheque purchase facilities by debiting the Impreset Clearing Account to various constituents details of which are in the enclosed statement of allegations, which amount to misconduct in terms of Regulation 3 read with Regulation 24 of Dena Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 punishable with Dena Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. He is, therefore, charged as under:

01. He committed acts of gross irregularities by unauthorisedly allowing temporary overdrafts, unauthorized cheque purchase facilities by debiting the Impreset Clearing Account which amounts to acts involving lack of integrity and honesty.

02. He failed to take all requisite steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and committed acts of such commissions and omissions which were detrimental, prejudicial and injurious to the interest of the Bank.

03. He violated/flouted the rules and procedures of the Bank and in exercise of discretionary powers conferred on him exceeded his authority in allowing above unauthorized accommodation to various constituents. He thus exposed the Bank to risk of financial loss.

04. His irregular actions have caused or are likely to cause serious financial loss to the Bank.

05. He committed acts unbecoming of an officer of the Bank."

6. Enquiry proceedings were held against the petitioner and by his report dated 15.03.2004, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner filed his representation dated 16.04.2004 against the report of the Enquiry Officer, which was considered by t