JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent Bank.

2. The order of penalty of compulsory retirement from service, dated 21-04-2011, imposed upon the petitioner has been challenged in the present writ petition, inter-alia, on the ground that the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to gravity of the alleged misconduct.

3. The petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, is that he was an employee of the Union Bank of India. While serving as the Branch Manager of Tezpur Branch, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the following charges:-

1. Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank.

2. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence.

3. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity.

4. Acting otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties.

4. Although the writ petitioner had denied the charges brought against him by contending that the alleged manipulation of accounts and payment of gratification made by him was for the purpose of business development, the disciplinary authority did not accept his explanation and went ahead with the departmental enquiry. Eventually, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report dated 25-11-2010 holding that all the allegations brought against the petitioner had been proved. Based on the enquiry report dated 25-11-2010, the impugned order of penalty has been issued.

5. Mr. Borthakur submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, his client had crossed the age of retirement and therefore, the only relief, that the writ petitioner is seeking at this point of time is for interference with the order of penalty. Since the basic ground on which the petitioner is assailing the order of penalty is that the same is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct, it would be necessary for this Court to reproduced the findings and observations of the Enquiry Officer as reflected in the Enquiry Report with regard to the allegations brought against the petitioner.

6. With regard to the allegation No. 1, the conclusion of Enquiry Officer is as follows:-

“It is true that the accommodations granted to four customers, namely, M/S Jaiswal Trading, M/S N.K. Enterprise, M/S Ved Prakash Sharma & M/S A-One Traders were recovered with interest from those beneficiaries. Nevertheless the manner in which Shri Manish Purkayastha (CSO) allowed such accommodation is unethical. The entries are fake and therefore, cannot be justified by any consideration.”

7. Insofar as the allegation No. 2 is concerned the Enquiry Officer has found as follows:-

“I, therefore, hold that Allegation No. 2 stands proved. However, as regards payment of illegal gratification of Rs. 26,000.00 to the Project Director, DRDA, Tezpur, Shri Sanjay Sharma, Assistant Manager, Tezpur Branch debited Suspense account – Miscellaneous on 06.10.2007, received payment (Exhibit: MEX – 18) and paid the money to the Project Director in presence of DW-1 Shri Lakhi Kanta Sharma.

Shri Manish Purkayastha (CSO) is not associated with this payment.”

8. Insofar as the allegation No. 3 is concerned, here also, the Enquiry Officer has held that the allegation was proved. The observations made in the enquiry report on the above count are as follows:-

“Allegation No. 3 stands proved. However, the undue accommodation amounting to Rs. 106.00 lacs extended to four customers of the branch has been fully recovered with interest. The interest amount was recovered from the parties on 28.02.2009 in presence of Regional officials. The CSO had also deposited Rs. 3,84,598.00 being the total amount of wrongful/ spurious debits to Expenditure Heads vide his letter dated 17.03.2009 and requested the Bank to appropriate the amount towards financial irregularities committed. The whole amount has been appropriated under various Expenditure H