CWP No.17978 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.17978 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.10.2008 Sohan Lal ..Petitioner Versus Union Bank of India & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta J. The petitioner has challenged order dated 19th September, 2007, Annexure P-16, whereby he has been compulsorily retired from service. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 10th June, 2008, Annexure P-21 whereby the appeal filed by him against the order, Annexure P-16 has been rejected. The brief factual background of the case is that the petitioner joined Union Bank of India as a clerk on 22nd September, 1975. On 5th May, 1995, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of officers. On 15th May, 2003 the petitioner was promoted as Manager. While posted as Branch Manager at one of the branches of the bank in Dehradun, serious irregularities were observed when he sanctioned 393 Union Comfort Loans for purchase of computers (printers, UPS, Scanner, Digital Camera etc.) aggregating to Rs.1.54 crores. It was found that the petitioner had not followed the basic lending norms as required under the Union Comfort Loan Scheme of the bank. As a CWP No.17978 of 2008 2 result of this, financial loss was caused to the bank. An inquiry was conducted in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Following charges were considered as proved:- “Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity. Acting otherwise than in his best judgment in performance of his official duties.” Resultantly, major penalty of compulsory retirement from services of the petitioner with immediate effect was imposed upon him in terms of Regulation 7 of Union Bank of India Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 197. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order before the appellate authority of the bank who dismissed the same vide order dated 9.6.2008, Annexure P-21. The petitioner has assailed both the aforesaid orders in the present writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that proper opportunity was not granted to the petitioner during the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. This has resulted in injustice to the petitioner. Besides, the Enquiry Officer has merely reproduced the written submissions of the presenting officer in his report and thus the said report could not be accepted. The counsel has also contended that CWP No.17978 of 2008 3 the petitioner was granted Super Achiever Certificate on 21st September, 2005, annexed as Annexure P-4 to the petition and thus his meritorious services had been recognized by the bank. In view of this, the bank had wrongly imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. We have given thoughtful consideration to the matter. It appears that the petitioner had approached this court earlier also by filing CWP No.6178 of 2008 and his writ petition was dismissed by the following order:- As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal against the order of compulsory retirement. In view of the said fact, we do not wish to interfere against the order of compulsory retirement at this stage. Dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to decide the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law. Sd/- Hemant Gupta Judge Sd/- Mohinder Pal 11.4.2008 Judge”. We have perused the detailed order passed thereafter by the appellate authority. The main contention of the petitioner before the appellate authority was that the management had imposed lesser punishment in several cases where similar allegations were levelled against an employee. The order of compulsory retirement in case of the petitioner has thus resulted in meting out discriminatory treatment to CWP No.17978 of 2008 4 him. The appellate authority, however, rejected this plea of the petitioner and reiterated that he had committed serious irregularities in sanction and disbursement of loan at Wadia Institute Branch, Dehradun of the bank. He disbursed loans without following the terms and conditions of the tie-up arrangement made by the bank for financing computer loans. He sanctioned 393 computer loans out of which six loans were to family of one Niraj Gupta. He also sanctioned 10 housing loans. All these loans were sanctioned in a short span of 16 months. The appellate authority thus came to the conclusion that the petitioner had caused loss to the bank as overdue in all the loan accounts aggregated to Rs.46.48 lacs. It is clear from the perusal of the impugned orders that all the facts were taken into consideration by the bank authorities before deciding to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. This court does not find it a fit case to interfere in the order of compulsory retirement as no legal infirmity with the impugned order has been pointed out. The bank has acted in terms of Regulation 7 of Union Bank of India Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any violation of the said rules while passing the impugned orders by the bank authorities. No other legal defect with the impugned orders has been highlighted. Besides, it appears that the order, Annexure P-16 was passed by the disciplinary authority of the bank at Lucknow and the CWP No.17978 of 2008 5 appellate order was passed by the appellate authority at Bombay. Last posting of the petitioner when the charges were levelled against him, was at Dehradun. The territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain this petition is, therefore, also doubtful. However, having examined the matter on merits, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for in the impugned orders. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed with no order as to costs. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE October 21, 2008 'rajpal'