The necessity of reasoned and speaking orders in administrative decisions affecting individuals' civil rights is essential for fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

Anand Singh Bahrawat, J.

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief(s):-

“(i) That, the order impugned dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure - P/1) issued by the respondent no. 3 may kindly be quashed with a further direction to quash the consequential order dated 03.10.2013 (Annexure - P/2) with a further direction to reinstate to the petitioner in services and pay arrears of salary for intervening period with all consequential benefits alongwith interest.

(ii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners including the costs throughout may also be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Branch Manager, Scale-I, on 16th November, 1987. Thereafter, he was posted at the Indergarh Branch on 19th January, 2009, where he continued to serve in the said capacity until 3rd February, 2011. It is submitted that during the aforesaid period of posting, the respondent-Bank had introduced a policy/scheme pertaining to grant and sanction of loans against the security of receipts issued by government-approved warehouses.

3. It is submitted that pursuant to the said Scheme while discharging his official duties, proceeded to sanction certain loans in accordance with the prescribed norms and, upon completion of all procedural formalities, disbursed the said loans. The relevant documentation and details concerning the sanctioned loans were duly forwarded to the competent higher authorities of the Bank, who thereafter granted requisite approval and accorded formal sanction in respect of the said transactions.

4. It is further submitted that the respondent-Bank, at a later stage, levelled allegations against the petitioner, asserting that there had been irregularities in the process of loan sanctioning. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 20th July, 2011. Subsequent thereto, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. Upon conclusion of the said proceedings and completion of the departmental enquiry, the respondent-Bank, by way of final order dated 16th May, 2013 (Annexure P-1), imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. The relevant extract from the impugned order dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure P-1) is reproduced hereinbelow:

**tk¡p dk;Zokgh esa çLrqr fooj.k leLr nLrkostksa dk voyksdu djus rFkk tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk çLrqr fu"d"kZ çfrosnu dk v/;;u djus ds mijkar eSa tkap vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ ls lger gw¡A vr% lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fu.kZ; ysrs gq, vuq'kklukRed çkf/kdkjh dh gSfl;r ls vkaf'kd fl) ik;s x;s vkjksi Øekad 10 ds fy, eSa Jh dqyJs"B dks lsUVªy e/;çns'k xzkeh.k cSad ¼vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh½ lsok fofu;e 2012 ¼iwoZorhZ lriqM+k ueZnk {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad ¼vf/kdkjh vkSj deZpkjh½ lsok fofu;e 2010½ dh /kkjk 18 ,oa 20 dk nks"kh ekurs gq, lsUVªy e/;çns'k xzkeh.k cSad ¼vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh½ lsok fofu;e 2012 ¼iwoZorhZ lriqM+k ueZnk {ks=h; xzkehu cSad ¼vf/kdkjh vkSj deZpkjh½ lsok fofu;e 2010½ dh /kkjk 39&1 ¼[k½(V)ds rgr inP;qfr tks lkekU;r% Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, fugZjrk gksxh dk n.M ikfjr djrk gw¡A ftls eSa vkjksi dh xaHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq, mfpr ;qfälaxr ,oa vkuqikfrd (Commensurate to the gravity of charge) ikrk gwaA mijksäkuqlkj vkjksiokj ikfjr n.M fuEukuqlkj gS%&