Rajendra Menon, J.

( 1. ) Challenging the order of punishment - Annexure P/4 dated 15.6.1998, imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, and the order - Annexure P/6 dated 21.9.98, passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, this petition is filed.

( 2. ) From the facts that have come on record, it is seen that in the year 1995, petitioner was working as a Field Officer in State Bank of India, Sarkanda Branch, Bilaspur. As a Field Officer it was his duty to take action for processing and evaluating the claims and cases of various persons and establishments for grant of loan and also take steps for recovery of the same. ( 3. ) On the ground of serious irregularities committed by the petitioner in the matter of discharging his duties as a Field Officer and not taking proper steps in the matter of processing and granting loan facilities to various persons and establishment, a charge-sheet - Annexure P/1 was issued to the petitioner. Petitioners reply to the same being found unsatisfactory, enquiry was ordered. On the basis of evidence and material that came on record, the enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted his finding, which was forwarded to the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 dated 2.1.98, asking him to give his say on the finding. Petitioner submitted his reply to the findings of the enquiry officer vide Annexure P/3 and after considering the same, the disciplinary authority by the impugned order - Annexure P/4 dated 15.6.98 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner in terms of the relevant rules applicable i.e.. The State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty, petitioner preferred an appeal vide Annexure P/5 dated 30.7.98, which is rejected vide Annexure P/6 dated 21.9.98 and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court challenging the enquiry conducted, the finding recorded and the punishment imposed.

( 4. ) Before adverting to consider the contentions advanced, it would be appropriate at this stage to take note of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the nature of imputations as contained in the charge-sheet Annexure P/1 dated 13.11.95. In all seven charges, imputation of misconduct, were alleged against the petitioner. The statement of allegations and the articles forming the charges are as under:

"STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 1. Zonal Office sanctioned loans aggregating Rs.10.90 lacs to M/s. Shri Ram Metal corporation. Prop. Shri Jai Kumar Saraf under nursing programme vide their letters Nos. R/RM/II/ADV/1712 dated 8.5.87 and R/RM/II/ADV/2306 dated 13.4.88. You have committed following irregularities while the loans were made available to the unit :-

a) You have not obtained the documents in accordance with the sanction letter. b) The guarantee of Shri Babulal Soni and equitable mortgage of his house property as collateral security have been obtained. Shri Babulal Soni have been reportedly expired in 1966. You failed to notice this fact. This indicates that some fictitious person had executed the mortgage and guarantee agreements. c) Other guarantors are close relatives of the proprietor Shri Jai Kumar Saraf as such the very purpose of obtaining third party guarantee is defeated. d) You allowed over drawings in the units cash credit account. You also did not carry out periodical inspections of the unit. The outstandings of Rs.18,05,200=70 being doubtful of recovery were transferred to protested Bills Account. The DIandCGC have rejected the Banks claim. You have exposed the Bank to grave risk of loss.

ARTICLES OF CHARGES By not obtaining documents in accordance with the sanction letter, by getting the guarantee/mortgage agreements executed by fictitious person you have been grossly negligent and acted in a manner detrimental to the Banks interests and exposed the Bank to grave risk of loss. Your acts are unbecoming of a Bank official. You have contravened Rules Nos. 50(1) and 50(4) of State Bank of India Officers Se