Hon’ble Virendra Kumar-II, J.—Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This writ petition has been instituted for quashing of orders dated 6.1.2010, 31.12.2010 and 4.5.2012 passed by opposite party No. 2 to 4.

3. It is pleaded that the disciplinary authority-opposite party No. 3 vide order dated 6.1.2010 has passed punishment order of compulsory retirement from service against the petitioner, which is arbitrary and unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice. The inquiry officer has relied upon reports submitted by the Investigating Officer and approved valuer, whereas no opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses was afforded to the petitioner. Opposite party No. 2-appellate authority passed order dated 31.12.2010 and opposite party No. 4 passed order dated 4.5.2012 ignoring the fact that the full and proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner to cross-examine the above-mentioned witnesses.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner had followed all the procedures as prescribed by the bank. The Inspecting Officer had submitted special report with perverted bond of mind. Following details were relied upon by the petitioner, which are mentioned in the special report as under :

“1. A portion of the above house has been reported to be sold.

2. House has been constructed on part situated in well defined and old established Balmiki basti.

3. As Mr. Sehgal reported to be a well established person of the society. It is difficult to understand as to why Mr. Sehgal would have been residing in scavenger’s colony. The sanctioning authority failed to note this aspect.”

5. This special report was made foundation of charge-sheet issued against the petitioner. No financial loss was caused to the bank on the basis of the conduct of the petitioner. The details of the accounts of loan has been mentioned by the bank in paragraph-8 of the writ petition, out of four accounts only two account of loan were sanctioned by the petitioner. The account of Mr. Sanjay Saxena, a reputed Chartered Accountant of Shahjahanpur has been closed as per the terms of the sanction letter. On the basis of the other account of Mr. Vinod Sehgal, no loss has been caused to the bank. This account was hurriedly closed by the petitioner’s successor before the stipulated maturity of the loan through unwarranted compromise. The sufficient security was available with the bank and there was no need for the bank to rush into any compromise with Mr. Sehgal. The same argument applies to the account of Dr. Navin Kumar. The loss incurred through compromise settlement of accounts cannot be attributed to the petitioner.

6. It is mentioned that in all these four accounts, the assets were created and all the borrowers were forced to close their account at a value which were higher than the value shown by the disciplinary authority in the charge-sheet. The disciplinary authority has taken a premeditation hostile and biased view, because charge against the petitioner of disbursing two installments to borrowers in two days was mentioned against the petitioner. Whereas this fact was ignored that the petitioner had disbursed one installment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac only) in two parts of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-.

7. It is contended that the petitioner’s performance in his last assignment as Branch Manager of Staff College of Branch Indira Nagar, Lucknow laid solid foundation for the future business of the branch. The details of deposit defines profit and N.P.A. has been mentioned in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition. It is mentioned that N.P.A. of the Branch as on 31.3.2012 was only 0.4% even after passage of four years is indicative of high standards of bank during the petitioner’s tenure. This fact was also not considered by the bank-management.

8. It is contended that initially the petitioner was appointed on 2.11.1982 on the post of Probation