Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Petitioner-Sarthi Raha, an Officer in the Grade of MMGS-III in State Bank Of India assailing punishment order dated 25.5.2009 passed by General Manager (Networking-II), imposing punishment of dismissal and Appellate order dated 29.7.2010 passed by Chief General Manager dismissing appeal.

2. Facts in brief giving rise to present writ petition are that petitioner was initially appointed as ‘Clerk’ in State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’) on 30.5.1970. He was promoted in management cadre as Officer, Junior Management Grade, Scale-I, in 1979 and further promoted in Middle Management Grade, Scale-II, and then Middle Management Grade, Scale-III. His date of birth is 2.6.1947, after completing 30 years of pensionable service, he was liable to retire on 30.6.2005. Since he was only 58 years of age on 30.6.2005, in terms of Rule 19 (1) of Rules, 1992, his services were extended for a period of two years vide order dated 1.7.2005 issued by Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Kanpur from 2.6.2005 to 1.6.2007 i.e. till he attained the age of 60 years. On 10.1.2007 petitioner submitted a letter, addressed to General Manager, seeking voluntary retirement on the ground of health, requesting to relieve him on the close of business on 10.2.2007. Petitioner was communicated with letter dated 10.2.2007 issued by Manager (H.R.) that he will retire from Bank’s service at the close of business on 30.6.2007 and may submit requisite documents for preparation of his retiral benefits.

3. Thereafter vide order dated 8.5.2007 issued by General Manager (Networking-II) petitioner was placed under suspension in terms of Rules 68(A)7(i) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules 1992, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1992’). He was also served with a charge-sheet dated 9.6.2007 containing 9 charges which read as under :

“Charge No. 1: You have sanctioned a large number of Housing Loans without conducting pre-sanction survey. This has resulted in loans being granted to ineligible borrowers.

Charge No. 2: In order to unduly accommodate the borrowers, you have sanctioned housing loans without making proper assessment. You have accepted inflated costs of land, project cost, and unjustified amounts shown as already invested in the project to sanction higher loan limits.

Charge No. 3: You did not submit BMDPs in respect of a number of housing loans to controllers to avoid observation therefrom.

Charge No. 4: You did not conduct post disbursement inspection/follow up. Non-creation of assets or incomplete projects, despite disbursement of entire loan amounts could thus not come to Bank’s notice, exposing bank to substantial financial loss.

Charge No. 5: In violation of Bank’s instructions, you did not obtain NECs in respect of property offered as security for the loans. NECs were arranged by borrowers/middlemen. You have thus sanctioned Housing Loans against fake NECs exposing the bank to substantial financial loss.

Charge No. 6: You did not send the drafts for the amounts of premium recovered from housing loan borrowers to SBI Life. The Bank drafts are lying with the Branch and rendered stale. Your lapse may make the Bank liable in case of any untoward happening to the life of borrowers.

Charge No. 7: You have manipulated your own loan accounts with the branch.

Charge No. 8: You flouted Bank’s Systems and Procedures while sanctioning Personal loans.

Charge No. 9: In order to conceal infirmities allowed by you to extend undue benefit to borrowers, you incorrectly classified loan out-standings in CIS advising lower NPA position than actually existed in the branch.” (emphasis added)

4. Since departmental proceedings were commenced by service of charge-sheet dated 9.6.2007 and petitioner was to retire on 30.6.