JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. This petition challenges the disciplinary order dated 31st October, 2017 imposing the major penalty of “dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” under the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977, and the appellate order dated 28th March, 2018 affirming it. Consequentially, the Petitioner seeks directions for release of terminal dues, including gratuity beyond the statutory ceiling, leave encashment and pensionary benefits.

2. The Petitioner joined the Bank on 29th December, 1980. At the relevant time from 21st May, 2012 to 21st April, 2015, he was serving as Assistant General Manager and incumbent-in-charge at Branch Office, (“BO”):

MCB, Brady House, Mumbai.

3. On 26th July, 2017, the Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet under Regulation 6 initiating major penalty proceedings. The article of charge was framed as a single, omnibus head: while sanctioning credit facilities to various borrowers, the Petitioner allegedly failed to exercise due diligence, departed from the Bank’s guidelines, did not ensure a proper pre-sanction appraisal, and did not ensure effective post-sanction monitoring and follow-up, thereby jeopardising the Bank’s interest. The statement of imputations then enumerated the allegations by cataloguing a series of asserted lapses across five borrower accounts: Plymouth Multiventure Pvt. Ltd., Gopal Masterbatch Pvt. Ltd., Vision Machines Pvt. Ltd., K.V. Alloys and Basil Resources Pvt. Ltd.

4. A departmental enquiry followed. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 18th October, 2017. This report recorded a mix of “proved”, “partly proved” and “not proved” findings across several sub-items of the imputations. The Petitioner furnished a representation to the report.

5. On 31st October, 2017, the Disciplinary Authority awarded the major punishment of dismissal. The impugned order is account-wise and detailed. It records, among other things, failures attributed to the Petitioner at the sanction stage (such as accepting projections, not ensuring specified documents, not drawing or considering certain reports) and failures at the monitoring stage (such as stock verification, routing of sales, QMS/PMS related financial monitoring, and follow-up on adverse visit reports). The same order also recorded that two other charge-sheets dated 31st July, 2017 and 27th October, 2017 would be kept in abeyance, with liberty reserved to reopen if considered necessary.

6. The Petitioner’s departmental appeal came to be rejected by order dated 28th March, 2018. While affirming the penalty, the Appellate Authority declined to accept the plea that several lapses were merely “operational” and attributable to processing officials. It confirmed the findings that as the incumbent-in-charge, the Petitioner remained responsible for ensuring compliance with the Bank’s applicable guidelines.

7. The dismissal order was made on the very date of the Petitioner’s superannuation, with the consequence that his terminal benefits have been withheld.

Petitioner’s submissions:

8. Mr. Rajinder Gulati, counsel for the Petitioner, has mounted a multi-pronged challenge, directed both at the integrity of the enquiry process and at the sustainability of the punishment. In substance, the submissions are these:

8.1. The case is one of “no evidence”, or at least findings so perverse that no reasonable enquiry officer could have arrived at them. The Bank chose not to examine any management witness even though the imputations traverse disputed factual terrain across multiple borrower accounts. The enquiry was reduced to marking documents through the Presenting Officer without proving them through any competent witness. The documents were neither proved nor admitted, yet were treated as evidence to sustain serious findings across multiple accounts.

8.2. The enquiry report contains several contradictions demonstrating perversity. The Enquiry Office