Yadav, J. -- 1. This intra-Court appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 19.1.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.2468/2004; whereby writ Court negatived the challenge to an order of dismissal dated 6.7.1993 and its affirmation in appeal dismissed on 30.3.1994.

2. The petitioner while holding the post of Assistant Manager in Junior Management Grade Scale I, State Bank of India, Morena was charge-sheeted on 25.5.1990; whereby, following charges were levelled against him, viz. :

(i) You sanctioned advance in an irregular manner, indulged in falsification of records and benefitted yourself/borrower by floating/granting the loans. You have thus misused your official position. You exhibited lack of devotion to duty and unbecoming of a Bank official.

(ii) You sanctioned advance in an irregular manner beyond discretionary powers and by these acts undue favours have been passed on to the borrowers at the cost of the Bank. You have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of Bank’s official.

(iii) You sanctioned advance to the borrower in a dubious manner enabling him to derive undue benefits at the cost of the Bank. You exhibited lack of devotion to duty. Thus you acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank official.

(iv) Finance/benefit of subsidy have been extended to the borrowers even though their earlier loan accounts were running in default. Since the loans later sanctioned by you to the borrowers are in default, you have exposed the Bank’s interests to jeopardy.

(v) In violation of the laid down instructions undue benefit of subsidy/loan amount have been passed on to the borrower. You exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank official.

(vi) You, misusing your official position, derived the benefit of the loan/Government subsidy for yourself and thereby put the Bank’s interests to jeopardy. You failed to discharge your duties with utmost devotion. You have also acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank official.

(vii) By releasing the amount of loans for the purpose other than the ones for which the loans were sanctioned and by non-creation of assets which enabled the borrowers to misutilise the loan amounts, undue favours have been passed on to them. You have exhibited lack of devotion to duty being unmindful of the Bank’s interest.

(viii) You sanctioned the loans in a dubious manner, by misusing your official position and undue favours have been passed on to the borrowers. You have unmindful of the Bank’s interest. The Bank’s interests have been put to jeopardy.

(ix) Your above acts are in contravention of rules No. 32(1) and 32(4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. The Bank has been saddled with substantial loss.

3. On the delinquent denying the charges, a regular departmental enquiry was held.

4. As per record, delinquent engaged Shri D.K. Jain, Officer, JMGS Grade I as his defence counsel; however, as the defence counsel did not appear in any of the hearings, the delinquent defended his case. And it was only when the prosecution had closed its case, delinquent engaged Shri K.N. Sharma, Officer MMGS II as his defence counsel who participated in hearing on and after 22.1.1992.

5. Record further reveals that, prosecution presented 600 documents; whereas 58 documents were produced by the delinquent in defence. For prosecution out of 11 witnesses, six persons appeared for deposition. The delinquent examined 7 defence witnesses and submitted 198 pages of defence statement on the closure of proceedings.

6. That, out of eight charges, charge No.1 was found partly proved and charge No. 6 was not found proved. Whereas, charges No.2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 were found proved.

7. As evident from the enquiry report on record, the enquiry officer found the charges as to the persons whose name found mention in imputation of charges were not found to be the delinquent’s relati