IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15956 of 2010 UMESH PRASAD JHA SON OF SRI BHOLA PRASAD JHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAHUA, POST OFFICE- RAHUA, P.S.- ROSERA, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR (BIHAR) Versus 1. CHAIRMAN,UCO BANK , 10 BRABOURNE ROAD, KOLKATTA, WEST . BENGAL. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, UCO BANK, 10 BRABOURNE ROAD, KOLKATTA, WEST BENGAL. 3. GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL SERVICES), UCO BANK, HEAD OFFICE-2, PERSONNEL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, 3 & 4D.D. BLOCK, SECTOR NO.1, SALT LAKE, KOLKATTA- 700064 (WEST BENGAL). 4. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK, BLOCK-A, FOURTH FLOOR, MAURYALOK COMPLEX, NEW DAKBANGLOW ROAD, PATNA-1 (BIHAR). ----------- 3 24.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the UCO Bank(hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioner was proceeded against vide charge sheet dated 14.09.2006, Annexure-1 alleging that petitioner sanctioned and disbursed loan, although his lending power was kept in abeyance by the Regional Office of the Bank. The Enquiry Officer under report dated 25.5.2007, Annexure-3 found both the charges partially proved, in as much as petitioner was found to have sanctioned/ disbursed loan under pressure from the Government Officials. The disciplinary authority having considered the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 25.5.2007 passed punishment order dated 31.10.2007, Annexure-4 reducing the basic pay of the petitioner to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay(scale-I) for a period of one year with further direction that petitioner shall not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction. Against the punishment order petitioner preferred 2 appeal, which was allowed under order dated 13.8.2008, Annexure-5 and the Punishment order was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. After remand of the matter the disciplinary authority passed order dated 24.10.2008, Annexure-6 maintaining the same punishment which was inflicted earlier Petitioner challenged the order dated 24.10.2008, Annexure-6 also by filing appeal, which was considered by the appellate authority under order dated 08.06.2009, Annexure-7. The appellate authority having considered the matter and having found that the action of the petitioner in sanctioning loan under pressure from the Government Officials is likely to cause loss of Rs.26,53,964/- (Twentysix lakh fifty three thousand and nine hundred sixtyfour) to the Bank has maintained the punishment. I do not see any illegality in the appellate order dated 8.6.2009, Annexure-7. The writ application is dismissed. M.I. HAQUE. (V.N. Sinha, J )