By the Court.—Heard Mr.Kapil Deo, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr.Ashwani Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Lalit Shukla, Advocate appearing for the respondent-Bank.

2. Petitioner, who was working as Staff Officer MM-III in the Bank of India, was dismissed from the service, has filed the instant writ petition questioning the validity and correctness of the dismissal order dated 25.6.2010, appellate order dated 16.9.2010, forfeiture and recovery order dated 6.8.2010 including the order dated 22.9.2010 passed on the application, contained in Annexures 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, in short, facts of the case are that during the period 24.5.2005 to 23.5.2007, when the petitioner was posted as Chief Manager, Bank of India, Rudauli Branch, the Branch received a loan application from one Rajesh Singh for setting up a rice mill in the name of M/s Singh Rice Mill in the month of December, 2005. The loan was proposed to be secured by mortgage of land of Khasra Nos. 2600 and 2656, which was in the name of the proposed Guarantor Shri Tej Bhan Singh whereas the rice mill was proposed to be set up on a separate land, namely, khasra No. 2933. After receipt of application for grant of loan, the petitioner carried out the pre-sanction inspection and submitted its report on 24.1.2006 indicating therein that two properties were inspected, viz., the properties which were proposed for mortgage and the property on which the mill was situated. Thereafter, the papers were given to Shri G. N. Khare, an Advocate on the Bank’s Panel for the last 25 years, who, in turn, submitted its report dated 22.12.2005 certifying that the land of Khasra Nos. 2600 and 2656 could be mortgaged in favour of the bank. The proposal was sanctioned by the Bank and the land Khara Nos. 2600 and 2656 was mortgaged in favour of the Bank.

4. As proprietor of M/s Singh Rice Mill committed default in re-payment of loan, the Branch initiated recovery proceedings against it by filing recovery certificate with the revenue authorities. In this connection, the Rudauli Branch informed the revenue authorities that the rice mill was located on the property which had been mortgaged in favour of the Bank. According to the petitioner, this information furnished by the petitioner’s successor was factually incorrect as in the records of the bank, the rice mill was established on different property and not on the mortgaged property, i.e. Khasra Nos. 2600 and 2656.

5. It is in this background that the Additional District Magistrate, Faizabad got the matter investigated by the Naib-Tahsildar, Milkipur and thereafter informed the Bank that no rice mill is existing on the mortgaged property, i.e. Khasra Nos. 2600 and 2656 and its owner Shri Tej Bhan Singh had sold his property in 1996. However, on 20.3.2010, the Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for committing gross dereliction of duties and in gross violation of Bank’s procedure while sanctioning cash-credit limit and term loan to M/s Singh Rice Mills, a proprietorship concern of one Rajesh Singh.

6. After conclusion of enquiry, on 1.6.2010, the Inquiry Officer gave a finding of PROVED. However, the loss was quantified by him likely around Rs. 25.68 lacs. Thereafter, on 25.6.2010, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of ‘Dismissal’ upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under sub-regulation 17 of the Bank Regulation to the Zonal Manager/Appellate Authority, who rejected the same vide order dated 16.9.2010.

7. On 25.6.2010, a show-cause notice was also issued to the petitioner requiring him to show-cause as to why recovery/forfeiture of Rs. 25.68 lacs be not made from the Provident Fund (Bank’s Contribution) and Gratuity of the petitioner. Though the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 14.7.2010, yet it was rejected by the Deputy Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Lucknow Z