IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of natural justice, including the duty to disclose material adverse to the employee, must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings, and non-disclosure of such material would amount to a denial of reasonable opportunity.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition wherein he had sought the following reliefs:-

“I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing order dated 27.09.2010 (Annexure P-13).

II. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the order dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure P-11).

III. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the order dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure P-9).

IV. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing the charge-sheet Dt. 12.08.2008 (Annexure P-3) in toto and the subsequent departmental proceedings conducted in complete violation of law and further directing the respondent bank to reinstate the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits alongwith promotional benefits w.e.f. December, 2008.”

2. The bare minimal facts as required for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant joined the service of the respondent-Bank in the month of September, 1979 as Clerk-cum-Assistant cashier. During the course of his service, a show cause notice dated 25.03.2018 was issued to him, on the allegations that during the course of his tenure as Manager of “Anti Branch” of the respondent-Bank w.e.f. 11.09.2006 to 15.03.2008, he had committed gross irregularities, as mentioned in the show cause notice. He was afforded 10 days time to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him.

3. The appellant denied the allegations by filing reply dated 05.04.2008, however, the authority was not satisfied with the explanation so offered and accordingly vide communication dated 12.08.2008, the appellant was informed that the bank intended to hold an enquiry against him under Regulation 6 of the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. Accordingly, the petitioner was served with following Articles of Charges:-

“ARTICLES OF CHARGE”

Mr D. S. Verma, (PFM No. 25046) Manager, presently posted at Sambhalpur Main Branch while his posting as Manager of Anti Branch w.e.f. 11.09.2006 to 15.03.2008 unauthorisedly issued signed fake bank Guarantees and has thus not only tarnished the image and reputation of the Bank but has exposed the Bank to possible litigation, revenue losses and potential losses in the even of invocation of these Bank guarantees. 1. Mr D S Verma exceeded his delegated lending powers and utterly failed to adhere to the guidelines and instructions of the bank conveyed from time to time as also detailed out in Loan Policy Document 2006-07 of the Bank as regards issuance and handling of Bank Guarantees. Mr D.S. Verma thus failed to discharge his duties with utmost care, diligence and sincerity and thus failed to ensure & protect the interests of the bank which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended.

2. Mr. D.S. Verma acted in a non-judicious manner, detrimental to Bank’s interests while issuing unauthorized Bank guarantees without charging appropriate and applicable commission and other charges at the time of issue of these guarantees and when the matter came to light he recovered guarantee fee after the expiry of about one year, thus cause revenue loss to the bank. Mr. D S Verma has thus failed to perform his duties with utmost integrity, devotion & honesty which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended.

3. Mr D S Verma while issuing unauthorized Bank guarantees not only tarnished the image and reputation of the Bank but also exposed the bank to huge financial liabilities besides possible litigations by the respective beneficiaries. Mr D S Verma has thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employe