Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner has questioned the dismissal order dated 15.1.2003 as well as the appellate order dated 6.5.2005 by which the petitioner’s appeal was rejected.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that the petitioner at the relevant moment of time was posted as the Branch Manager in State Bank of India, Manauri Bazaar Branch in District Kaushambi from 18.1.1998 to 7.12.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted in the same capacity in Daraganj Branch in District Allahabad from 19.1.2000 to onwards.

3. It may be stated here that by an order dated 16.4.1996 the services of the petitioner was extended till he reached the age of 58 years, i.e., till 9.3.2001 subject to good health and satisfactory service. The petitioner was given a second extension by another order dated 18.4.2001 extending the service from 10.3.2001 to 9.3.2003. It has also been stated that under the Rules framed by the bank, an employee/officer who retires in the middle of the month is allowed to continue till the end of the month. Accordingly, the petitioner’s services was extended till 31.3.2003.

4. On 20.3.2003 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet alleging that during the period he was posted as the Branch Manager at Manuri Bazaar Branch and Daraganj Branch between 1998 to 2003, the petitioner failed to discharge his duties with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer, which was highly detrimental to the bank’s interest and in violation of Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The charges which were levelled against the petitioner are extracted here under :

“The charges in brief are as under:

MANAURI BAZAR BRANCH:

Charge No. 1:

You have sanctioned/disbursed loans in reckless manner under Bank’s regular schemes and Government sponsored schemes. Majority of these loans have turned Non Performing Assets and bank is likely to suffer substantial loss.

Charge No. 2:

You have sanctioned/disbursed loans in collusion with the middlemen and without ensuring and use of funds, consequently assets were not created in majority of the cases. Most of the assets financed by you were supplied by Shri Gyan Chandra Kesarwani alias Bachha Mahajan and Shri Ram Singh irrespective of kind of assets. You are alleged to have taken illegal gratification through these middlemen.

Charge No. 3:

You have sanctioned many PMRY loans in Agriculture and SIB Segments. You committed serious irregularities in sanction/disbursement of these loans, as a result of which bank is exposed to substantial loss.

DARAGANJ BRANCH

Charge No. 4:

You have not made post-disbursement inspections and subsequent periodical inspections as a result of which many loan accounts sanctioned/disbursed by you have turned into Non-Performing Assets and the bank is exposed to substantial loss.”

5. The inquiry under Rule 68 of the Rules was conducted in which the petitioner was given a full opportunity to defend himself. Upon the completion of the inquiry proceedings, an inquiry report was submitted, which was considered by the disciplinary authority, based on which, a dismissal order dated 15.10.2004 was passed. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal, which was rejected by an order dated 6.5.2005. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned orders, has filed the present writ petition challenging the dismissal order on various grounds.

6. We have heard Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jayant Banerji, the learned counsel for the respondent bank.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the instant case the dismissal order has been passed with retrospective effect, which is impermissible and cannot be done and consequently the dismissal order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon a