Disciplinary proceedings initiated beyond the limitation period stipulated in internal policies are invalid, and failure to provide reasoned decisions in appeals violates procedural fairness.

ORDER :

T.VINOD KUMAR, J.

Since the petitioner and the respondents in all the three writ petitions are one and the same, all the writ petitions are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the services of the respondent Bank in the year 1978 and after working at various places, he was posted to work as Chief Manager/Assistant General Manager -First Line at Rajbhavan Road Branch of the respondent Bank at Hyderabad, during the period 01.07.2007 to 31.05.2010; and that thereafter, he was transferred to respondent’s Bank's Branch at Nariman Point, Mumbai and worked as Assistant General Manager from 01.06.2010 to 08.06.2012 and thereafter, was promoted as Deputy General Manager – First Line and worked at the same branch from 09.06.2012 to 01.09.2012.

3. The petitioner contends that while working in the aforesaid branches of the respondent, he did not face any charges; that at the fag end of his service, while he was due for his retirement on 31.01.2020, the respondents have issued three charge memos alleging that during his service at the aforesaid two branches between the period 2007 to 2012 he was not diligent and did not discharge duties as per the norms of the respondent Bank; and that by hurrying up the process of conducting enquiry, by appointing the Enquiry Officer, considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge memos, have passed three separate orders on 31.01.2020 and visited him with punishment/penalties :

i) reduction in basic pay by one stage on the date of retirement;

ii) reducing to a lower grade with immediate effect i.e., from Scale VII to VI and the pay is fixed at the maximum stage in Scale VI;

iii) penalty of reduction by one stage in scale pay as on the date of retirement;

and that the respondent had passed all the aforesaid three (3) penalty orders on the last day of his service in order to prevent / settlement of terminal benefits on his retirement in the cadre in which he was last working i.e., Branch-General Manager.

4. It is also the further contention of the petitioner that, the 3^rd respondent had passed the impugned orders pursuant to charge memos issued to him earlier alleging that while working as the Assistant General Manager-First Line at Hyderabad and thereafter as Assistant General Manager and Deputy General Manager – First Line at Mumbai during the period 2007 to 2010 and 2010 to 2012 respectively, he had recommended for granting of loans to two Firms at the respective locations without causing proper verification; and that based on his recommendation, the Regional Office of the respondent had advanced loans to the aforesaid Firms; and that the said loans advanced have become Non-Performing Assets (NPA) subsequently; that the petitioner failed to perform duties with utmost devotion and diligence; and that he did not adhere to the instructions contained in point no. X in Annexure to Vigilance Department, Central Office Circular ref. No. MISC/129/2007-08 dated 31.07.2007.

5. It is also contended that the respondents further alleged that the petitioner did not do proper due diligence on the supplier by making discreet enquiries; that the supplier had failed to sup