JUDGMENT :

1. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 15.06.2021 passed by the appellate authority whereby appeal of the petitioner against the punishment order was also rejected.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Officer in Tulsi Gramin Bank (erstwhile Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank and now Aryavart Bank since 01.04.2019) (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') in the year 1983 and he was due to superannuate on 31.10.2018. While in service of the Bank, from 23.09.2010 till 10.01.2011, he worked in the capacity of Temporary Manager in Chakaundh Branch-Chitrakoot. On 11.01.2011, petitioner was posted as Permanent Manager in the same Branch till he was transferred on 20.07.2012. During his posting as Temporary Manager in the said Branch, some loans were sanctioned under a scheme sponsored by the National Scheduled Castes Finance & Development Corporation set up by the Government of India under the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment.

3. It is stated by the petitioner that as per the process prescribed, all the loans were recommended/approved by the Block Development Officer concerned and were also duly verified by the Bank and thereafter sanctioned. The beneficiaries of the said loans also purchased and received articles subjected to loans and recorded their satisfaction. The disbursement of loans was made as per the procedure prescribed by the Bank. The said loans were evaluated, sanctioned and disbursed and assets were created under the supervision of the Assistant Development Officer (Social Welfare), Pahari, Chitrakoot along with Sri Atmaram Gupta, who was the permanent officer posted in the Branch. The disbursement of loans was made as per the procedure and the said fact was duly reported by the petitioner to the competent authority by communications dated 17.02.2010, 30.03.2010 and 20.04.2010. The internal audit inspection of the Branch was also carried out by the Inspection Officer from 09.06.2010 to 14.06.2010. In the audit inspection report dated 15.06.2010, it was pointed out that disputed loans were sanctioned without approval of the Manager.

4. At the relevant time there were only two Officers posted in the said Branch namely Sri Atmaram Gupta as Evaluation Officer and the petitioner as the Temporary Manager (having no authorization to sanction the loan as per the Bank guidelines).

5. Right after the aforesaid irregularities were pointed out in the inspection report dated 15.06.2010, Sri Atmaram Gupta was transferred to another Branch by order dated 19.07.2010, with clear instruction not to deal with any loan transactions. The irregularities pointed out in the inspection report were not rectified as per the Bank. Thereafter 08 further financial annual internal inspections were conducted by the Bank till 2018 and no irregularities were pointed out in the said inspections. Surprisingly, after 08 years of the aforesaid incident, which had occurred in the year 2010, petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 23.08.2018 with regard to irregularities in the said loan transactions. After issuance of the show cause notice again a special inspection was carried out with regard to 14 loans transactions mentioned in the show cause notice dated 23.08.2018. The said special inspection was conducted on 27.09.2018.

6. A charge sheet was issued by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner on 11.10.2018 which was served on 18.10.2018, i.e., just 12 days prior to the retirement of the petitioner, containing total 18 charges levelled against the petitioner. Out of the 18 charges, Charge nos. 1 to 14 are with regard to wrong information provided by the petitioner in his explanation letter dated 10.09.2018, allegedly written by him, with regard to loans sanctioned during his tenure at the Chakaundh branch in the year 2010. Charge No. 15 is with regard to dereliction o