Procedural adherence in disciplinary appeals is essential: failure does not necessarily invalidate findings.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 27/10/2007 passed by the first respondent in No.2567/APP:VG:2007 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits including monetary benefits.

2. The crux of the allegations are that initially, the petitioner joined the respondent Bank on 2/5/1978. While he was working as Branch Manager, the petitioner has committed certain acts of omission and commission. Hence, on 8/12/2004, he was suspended from service and issued with a show cause memo dated 14/11/2005. In response to the show cause memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the said reply, by communication dated 2/6/2006, the second respondent had issued a charge memo to the petitioner framing 25 charges, which are serious irregularities that were allegedly committed in a pre-

sanctioned proposal, post sanction follow up and sanction of home loans.

3. According to the charges, loans were sanctioned by the petitioner in favour of fictitious persons and impersonators in respect of home loans, agricultural vehicle loans (kissan bikes) and agricultural loans (crop and borewells). Loans were advanced on the basis of fake and fabricated documents. In case of loans for purchase of vehicles, documents were not verified and after grant of loan, it was not ensured that the vehicles were purchased, thereby, the Bank had faced a financial loss to the tune of Rs.31,23,000/- excluding MOI and future interest. The said illegalities were committed during the period 10/6/2000 to 31/6/2004.

4. During the course of enquiry, relevant evidence was placed on record and after enquiry was concluded, charges 1 to 10, 12 to 19, 24 and 25 were held to be fully proved, charges 11 and 23 were not proved and charge Nos.20 and 21 in respect of two accounts, it was proved and charge No.22 in respect of one account was fully proved. The details of the charges are not necessary for adjudication of the present case.

5. The disciplinary authority submitted the enquiry report on

15/6/2007. In the enquiry report, running to about 28 pages, the evidence placed on record and also the defence of the petitioner was discussed. Thereafter, considering the charges that were proved, the disciplinary authority/Assistant General Manager awarded the major penalty of compulsory retirement in terms of Regulation 4 (h) of Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

6. On the basis of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who is the Deputy General Manager. In the appeal filed, several grounds were raised. The appellate authority found that the petitioner was reckless in lending and has violated the guidelines of Head Office. Further, the petitioner was responsible for sanctioning benami loans to impersonators, having knowledge about their impersonation. The acts of the petitioner resulted in a financial loss of Rs.31.23 lakhs to the Bank, excluding the interest component. Accordingly, appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the appellate authority found that charges that were proved against the petitioner were serious in nature and could not be condoned. The appellate authority found that finding of the disciplinary authority needs no interference and confirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement. 7. The petitioner has raised several grounds on the basis of facts regarding the disposal of loans, fictitious persons, impersonators and th