Point of Law: There cannot be a finding of misconduct against the petitioner in respect of Regulation 3(1) of the 1976 Regulations as Regulation 3(1) has to be considered in the light of whether the employee has been ensuring/protecting the interest of the bank and discharging his duties.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent UCO Bank.

2. The petitioner, who is working as an Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, is aggrieved with the impugned Order dated 30.09.2015, by which a penalty has been imposed upon him on the basis of the departmental proceeding, by which his basic pay has been reduced by four stages till retirement, with a further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and after expiry of the reduction period, such reduction will have the effect of postponing further increment of his pay.

3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that due to various transactions regarding deposits of money in his Bank account, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The Memorandum of Charge made against the petitioner shows that on the basis of 8 (eight) allegations made against the petitioner, three Articles of Charges were framed, which are as follows:

“(1) Shri Chandra Bhusan Kumar without the previous sanction of the Bank, engaged himself directly or indirectly in trade and business activity which is violative Regulation 6(1) of UCO Bank Office Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended.

(2) Shri Chandra Bhusan Kumar failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer, which is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Office Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended.

(3) Shri Chandra Bhusan Kumar and his family members have resorted to borrowing, which was violative of Regulation 15(1) of UCO Bank Office Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended.”

4. The departmental proceeding culminated with the filing of Enquiry Report on 16.08.2015, wherein, the Enquiry Officer found that Charge Nos. 1 and 3 were not proved, while Charge No. 2 was found to be proved.

The Disciplinary Authority, while dealing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer stated that the petitioner had engaged himself directly or indirectly in trade and business activity, without the previous sanction of the Bank and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer, which is in relation to Charge No. 1. However, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by four stages till retirement, with a further direction that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and after the expiry of the reduction period, such reduction would have the effect of postponing future increments of his pay. The penalty was thus imposed in relation to Charge No. 2.

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that once Charge Nos. 1 and 3 are not proved, there cannot be any question of Charge No. 2 being proved, inasmuch as, Charge No. 2 can only be consequential to the proving of Charge Nos. 1 and 3.

6. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioner does not deny that there had been deposits of money in his Bank Account from 01.10.2008 to 30.09.2012 as per the Bank statement. However, the same has been explained in his reply to the show cause notice dated 31.05.2014 and in his Defence Brief dated 12.08.2015.

7. Mr. M. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the UCO Bank, on the other hand submits that the 3 (three) Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner have been made on the basis of 8 (eight) allegations which included abnormal transactions, i.e. deposit of various amounts of money in the petitioner’s account, which did not match his known source of income.

He submits that the deposit of cash amounting to approximately Rs. 66 Lakhs having not been denied and proved by the Enquiry Officer, the imposition of penalty on the basis of Charge No. 2 was justified.

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. As has been submitted by the learned counsels for the parties, the issue involved is with regard to whether the deposit of approximate