1 ?^—'P^--^ fe;.-;^—.-.' .-^ (A^ IN^yMl'M&B1 comtf'orwmcA ii8'-'Arx''-yji»ai<pUB (M'P). ¥rlt Petltion ^_1 /2000 .¥rlt Petltlon mder Artl©le226 o£ the GoastitutiGB of Indjla-' ^'•k .Petlfciosier Respoadents_ ^ys-K^. ^,\ ^f-^. V'T ^J^C'^- Y.) ^{^^ ^'/ oo, ^~. '^ / Sl. 2. 5. / • . ?^issio^^^r ^^^ Rajendra ^.antear %utela, aged about 62 yeara^ ^OB of late ^iri BamaTtar Sliu&la, retired Assistaat Gh&ef Offieer, UCO Banfc, r/©Malviya Boad, Baipur (MP). Versue UCO Bank^ a body eorperated daly eoiistltiited lader Bankiiig CompaiilesCAcqu.lsltion Transfer of uiadertalclng) Aot,. 1970, hav&ag '' ItsHead office at .10, B.T.M. S. (Bratioume Boad) Calcutta-700001» Throagh t its General Manager®< GeBeral Manager^ (Operafcioa-1), Appellate Autoorlty, UCO Baak, 2, India Bxchauge Place Calcu^tao The Zional Maaager, UGO Bank, 2onal Offiee P/5 ^lrera C.olemy, BhQpal (MP). ''' ^^^ •^.^. -..^' { ^M HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3692 of 2000 Petitioner Rajendra Shankar Shukla Versus Respondents The UCO BauJs and otliers ^^ > £, . { ^^ Post for order on 3 f ^ December, 2006 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3692 of 2000 Petitioner Rajendra Shankar Shulda Vcrsus Respondents The UCO Baak axid others 8ing?e Bench : Honl3le Mr. Justice Satish K. Agpihotri. Shri K. R. Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri U. N. Awastitiy, Senior Advocate wifh Miss Raksha Awasfhy, Advocate for fhe respondents. ORDER (Passed on this<^/ day ofDecember, 2006) The foUowing order ofthe Court is passed by ^itish K. Ag^iihotrt, J. 1. In fhe prcsent ^tition ffled under Article 226 offhe Constitution of India fhe petitioner challenges fhe validity of the order dated 30.6.1999 (Annexiirc P/21) passed by the Assistant General Maaager (Disciplmary Aufhority). 2. The iadisputable facts m nutsheU are that the petitioner was workmg as Manager m fhe UCO Baak and was posted at the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvidyalaya (IGKW) extension. counter, Raipur. One cheque for a suni of Rs. 3,00,000/- fironi the personal and private savings accounts, jouitiy held by fhe petitioner aad his wtfe, was issued on 25.1.1991 in favour of Shri V. K. Shukla, fhe brother of fhe petitioner. On 6.3.1991 a stop payment mstruction was issued aad flie same was delivercd through tfae son of fhe petitioner at maia branch of fhe Baiik at Raipur. Shri V. K, Shulda preseuted fihe said cheque on 2.4. 1991 at the Raipur Branch and the officers/officials working at Raipur branch immediately made crcdit entty in fhe pass-book ofShri V. K. Shukla and sent fhe said cheque to fhe extensioa counter for SttS^3aSiS3SaaSBBfiM offering fhe crcdit to fhe Raipur Branch on fhe same day, wifhout verifytag as to whefher fhere was sufficient balaace ia fhe account and/orwhether there was any stop payment mstruction by the petitioner. The cheque was dishoaoured on aocount ofthe stop paynient instructioas. Shri V. K. Shukla on the basis of entdes made m his pass-book issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of his wife on 25.1.1999. The said cheque was also dishonourcd on account of fhe fact that no adequate amount was available in. the account of Shri V. K, Shukla. Shri V. K. ShuMa, beiag aggrieved, filed a civfl suit against the bank for not honouring fhe cheque issued by hini i& favoiir ofh.is wife. On rcceipt of a legal notice issued by Shri V. K. Shukla, the Senior Mao.eiger Shri Chattopadhyaya was directed to coaduct prcUmmary enqmiy by order dated 21.5.1991 (Annexurc P/5). In fhe meantibaie fhe petitioner was promoted to fhe next higher gmde by order dated 19.7.1994 (Annexurc P/6) w.e.f. 4.6.1993. The petitioner was further permitted to cross fhe efficiency bar by orderdated 12.8.1996 (Annexurc P/7) w.e.f. 1.6.1996. After a period of TYs years the respondent-Bank issued a charge sheet dated 20.5.1998 to fhe petitioner coatammg fhe following charges;- a (I) Shri R. S. Shukla issued/got issu^l a cheque on his joiat account wiliiout makmg aiiy aiTaagenient ofadequate balance and mtention to honour it, only to cause wrongful benefit to his rclative at the cost offhe Bank. He has fhus failed to dischaige his duties with utaiost mtegrily and horiesty, which is violative of Regulation 3 ofUCO Baiik OfBcer Eniployees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as aaiended. _ f^ (II) Shri Shxilda, by niakmg available flie ofi&cial comespondence (exchanged betweeii Regional Office, Raipur aad his branch) to his son which he later quoted in his proposal for compromise of Traiisport Loaa avaUed by him, has not only acted agamst fhe interest of fhe Baak but also has deUbeiateIy divulged information of a confsdential nature to a person ~ his son, not eutitled to it, which is violative of Regulation 4 of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended, (III) By availing loans aad fhat also frcquenfly, far ui excess of the permissible amount agalnst NSCs and FDRs without paymg mterest at fhe applicable rates, Shri R. S. Shiikla has fafled to discharge his duties wifh devotion, honesty aiid utniost iategrity. This act is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended." 5. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 22.6.1998 deaying aU the aUegatioas/charges. 6, In the coxirse ofthe enquiiy, the petitioner received a letter dated January 28, 1999 (Aunexure P/ 18) whercia it was stated tfaat ou attaining the age of superaiinuation. on 31.9.1999 fhe disciplinaiy piDceedings initiated against hua wfll contmue, as if fhe petitioner was m service iintil fhe proceedmgs arc completed and fia.al order is passed in that respect The petitioner would not receive aay pay or aUowaace after the date of superaiiiiuation. The petitioner retired ftom service on 31.9.1999 on attamirig the age of superaruiuation, 7. The Enquiry officer subniitted his report dated 7.5.1999 (Anaexure P/16) recoidmg fhe following findings as under:- "Charce No. /I) : Shri R. S. Shukla has failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity arid honesty^ which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Baak OflSce Employees" (Conduct) Regiilatious^ 1976^ as aniended - Hence, I hold fhe Charge No. 1 as piDved. Charge No. (II) : Shri R. S. Shukla has not acted against fhe uiterest of the Bank, aad has not divulged information of a confidential nature to his son, not entitled to it - I, fhercforc hold fhe ChaE^e No.2 as not proved. Charge No. fIIII : Shri R. S. SIiukla Iias failed to discharge his duties with devotion, honesty aad utmost integrity which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Baak Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 as aniended - Hence, the Charge No.3 staiids proved.^ 8. The discipliiiaEy aufh.ority agreeuig with the findiags ui respect of fhe charge No. 1 and 3 aad disagreeiag with the fiiidings m respect of charge No.2, imposed punishment of dismissal from the Baak's service m rcspect ofcharge No.l, reduction ofbasic pay by two stages m respect of charge No.2 and Censure m respect ofchargeNo.3 by the impugned order dated 30.6.1999 (Asiaexure P/21). The petitloner preferrcd an appeal beforc the ap^Uate authority and the same was dismissed, 9. The petitioner has filed fhis petition chatlengiag the validity of fhe impugaed order on the foUowing grounds: Firsfly, fhe charge No. 1 does not come wifhm fhe definition of misoonduct as defined iinder Regulation 24 of the UCO Baiik Ofiicers Employees (Condiict) Regalatioas, 1976 ( for short <fhe Conduct Regulations, 1976"), Regulation 24 clearly provides fhat a breach of aiiy of fhe provisions of fhese Regulations shall be deemed to be siiisconduct. No regtilation deals witii issue of a cheque from the officer's private aad personal accoiuits. Secondly, the act of the petitioner to issue a cheque m favour ofhis brofher Shri V. K, Shukla and thereafter issmng stop payment msfcniction, had not caused aay loss to fhe Baak and fhis conduct also does not come wifhin the purview of the official duties of fhe petitioiier. Thirdly, unexplauied delay of 7^ yeare beforc mitiation of the departmental enquiry when fhe petitioner has adsnittedly been promoted to a higher post aud was allowed to cross the Efficieucy Bar, the respondent Baak cannot issue a charge sheet after unexplamed delay of seven years; Fourthly, the Barik officer is not rcsponsible for dishouour of cheque as flie sanie has to be dealt with under some other provisions of law ie. under the provisions ofth.e Negotiable Instniments Act^ 1881. 10. Leanied coiinsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge No,2, which was found not proved by the disciplinaiy authority^ caBiiot be made the basis for imposmg punishment without issue of a notice to the deliaquent employee i,e. the petitioner and wifhout rccordmg the reasons for not disagrcemg wifh fhe enquiry officer, fhe punishment of dismissal cannot be imposed on fhe petitioner after his rctirement, as the rclationship of the employer and employee has come to an end on the rctirement of the petitioiier feom service and fhe seryice was extended only for fhe purpose of concluding the departmental enquiry uiitiated against hiin during his service. The petitioner becomes a pensioner» xiot aii eniployee, and does not contmue to be an employee offhe bank. 11, The impugaed oider is bad on accotint of the fact that fhere cannot be amalgam of the major and miaor penalties m a single 6 order m view of the decision of the Supreme Court m Uiiion of India & others Vs. S. C. Parashar 2006 (3) S.C.C. 167. 12. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner would further submit fh.at if fhe cheque issued by aay party, prcseuted ia any Bank is dishonoured for aay reasoii, whatsoever that niay be insufficiency offiuid or stop paymeat mstoructions, fhe Bank is only required to rctLira the cheque showmg the reason to tiie person who has presented it for payment and fhe ^grieved person Biay take actiou against fhe person who had issued such cheque. The alleged traiisaction was absolutely befe^een fhe family Dieinbers and it caiinot be said fironi any angle that fhe petitioner has conducted himiself in such a way which has caused loss to the Bank or that aaiount to <iuiisconduct> within the purview of aay of the regulations of fhe UCO Barik officer employees^ (Couduct) Regulations. 13. It was furfher submitted that if the petitioner had issued a cheque to his brother for buyuig a hoiise without keepiag adequate balance ia his saviags bank accoiint, that caiinot be treated as wrongful gam at tfae cost of fhe Baak aad the petitioner has not at all attempted to cheat a third party. There was no adndssfon iti fhe letter dated 10.8.1996 that the cheque was issued by the petitioner ia connivance wifh his brother, la fact the cheqiie was issued by fhe wife of fhe petitioner in favour ofShri V. K. Shukla, knowing the fact ofissue ofcheque, the son of the petitioner issued stop payment instnictions to fhe Bank, The bank itself adniitted m fhe written statenient dated 9.1.1993 before fhe civil Court fhat fhe relationship between fhe two brothers were not cordial. Shri Marwaha (P.W, 1) also stated fhat the relations between the petitioner and his brofher Shri V. K. r^£^ Shukla were not good, tiiercfore there was no occasion for fhe ^titioiier to issue a cheque iu connivance wifh his brother. Shri Marwaha (P.W. 1) himself admitted before the mquiry ofiicer fhat fhe petitioner's son Shri Rohit Shukla delivered the stop paynient uistructions and Shri Marwaha rcceived it. At that time fhe petitioner was not present. This statement has not been controverted by fhe Bank. Smce fhe cheque was dishonoiired on 2.4,1991 as per fhe stop paynient instructions, fhere is no bearing of fhe aUegation fhat neifher fhe petitioner made any stop payment caiition over the respective pages ofhis A/c's fotbs (S. B. Account No. 11061) uor he informed the parent brauch at Raipur to niark any caution ia his brother's savio^gs baiik account. The respondent Baiik has not showu any rule eifh.er before the enquuy oflScer or before fhis Court which prcscribes ftiat whea stop payment mstructions are issued, the main branch should be iB.tunated to inark caution in fhe accoiuit of fhe payee, Witii regard to fhe mala&de iatention of the petitioner fhat he was fiiUy aware offhe procedure being foUowed at braach which was allowmg immediate credite, it was submitted fhat Shri Marwaha (P.W. 1) has stated that fhere was no procedurc of giviag iniDiediate credit on prcsentation ofcheque aad the Baak?s rules prcscribe fhat the drawer>s account niust be debited beforc givmg credit whUe clearuig aay cheque. Thereforc, the findmg of the mquiry officer is agaio.st the rules ofthe Bank. Wifh rcgard to fhe allegatioa fhat fhe baiik has been dragged into unwan'aated litigation, learaed counsel for the petitioner would submit tiiat the civil suit filed by Shri V. K. Shukla was iiot on account of issue of cheque by fhe petitioner, but it was on account of the fact fhat fhe immediate credit was given in the savings bauk ^-K.Si.^*.-—^- ^' account of Shri V, K. Shukla by tfae officers/employees posted at Raipur bianch as weU as not rctuming fhe dishonoured cheque to Shri V. K. Shukla in time. 14. Leamed coiinsel for fhe petitioner would next submit that fhe inquiry was not just aad proper and fhe fmdiag of fhe mquuy officer and disciplinaiy aufhority were pewerse because fhe petitioner had rcquested for production offtie cheque in question to prove fhat he did not issue titie same but his wife had issued it but fhe same was not produced before ffae in.quiiy officer. Ttie petitioner had also rcquested for prcKluction oflegal aotice issued on behatf of Shri V. K. Shukla as weU as flie enquiry report submitted by Shri A, B. Chhatopadhyaya^ Senior Maaager, Raipur, wherein it was found that proper procedure was not followed by fhe Raipur branch biit none of the above documents were prodiiced by fhe respondent-Bank. The petitioner has also rcquested for production of fhe doniestic cheque register of Raipiir branch dt 2.4.91 to prove as to wheii the cheque was received from Shri V. K. Shukla, fhe dispatch cheque rcgister of Raipur braiich dated 29.4.1991 as to when fhe dishonoiircd cheque was returaed to Shri V. K. Shukla wifh niemo, but none of the above documents were presented before fhe mquiry officer nor copy were suppUed to fhe petitioner. 15. Shri U. N, Awasfhy, leanied Senior Advocate with Miss Raksha Awasfhy, leained Advocate, appeanng for the respondente, per contra, would suboiit that the services of fhe petitioner on account of his retfcrcnieat on attaming the age of superannuation would not coine to aa end, as by order dated 28.1,1999 fhe serurices of the petitioner contmued till completion of fhe enquuy under fhe provisions of Rule 20 (3) (ii^ of the UCO Bank Ofl5cers> 9 Service Regulations, 1979, The qiiestloa of production of such origio.al cheque iii fhe enquiry does not arise as fhe saixie has beeu rctunied back to Shri V. K. Shukla, fhe drawer. The imsconduct comiaitted by the petitioner caanot be condoned on account of fhe fact that fhe petitioner was promoted aad thereafter was permitted to cross fhe efficiency bar as no char^e-sheet was issued or enquiiy was pendiag during fhat period. 16, It was furfher submitted by leanied senior counsel, appearing for fhe rcspondents, fhat it is tnie that fhe petitioner was xiot given a notice whfle disagreeing with fhe fiudmgs of fhe eaquiring aufhority iii respect of charge No.2. Therc is no provisiou for issue of such a notice beforc disagrceing wifh the jGiidiugs of tlie enquiriiig authority. The disciplmaiy aufhority is coinpetent enoiigh to disagree with fhe charges unproved aad to pass fhe appropriate order of punishnient The petitioner has prcferred an appeal which was dismissed, thus, fhe petitioner had sufficient opportunity to defend his case aad at fhis stage fhe petitioaer cannot impugn fhe order oa fhe ground that necessaiy documieuts were not produced aad a copy of fhe samie was not supplied to fhe petitioner in the enquiry. Leamed coiuisel supported fhe penalty of dismissal. However, m respect of punishinent with rcgard to fhe charges No. 2 and 3, leanied coiuisel categorically conceded fhat fhe iniposition of penalties in. rcspect of charge No.2 oxid charge No.3 would not have any taipact on ftie petitioner, as fhe petitioner staads rctired from senace. 17. I have heard leamed coiuisel for the parties and perused fhe pleadmgs, documents appended thereto. ^&& 10 18. In tlie facts of the case on hand, the first point for consideration is as to whether the issiie of a cheque from fhe personal aad private account of an employee of the Bank amoimts to misconduct aad is violative of Regulation 3 of the Conduct Regulations 1976 ? It is undisputed that a cheque for a suxxi of Rs. 3,(X),CK)0/- was issued from the joiat personal & private savings baiik account No, 11061, held by the petitioner and his wife on 25,1.1991 ia favour ofbrofher offhe petitioner Shri V. K, Shiikla. Stop payment instructions were issued on 6.3.1991 which was delivercd by ftie petitioner's son at fhe maia braiich of tiie Bank at Raipur where Shri V. K. ShuMa was haviag his account The said cheque was prcsented on 2.4,1991 after a period of abont 25 days by Shri V. K. Shukla at fhe Raipur braach and fhe officers working at Raipur braiich without verifyiag the account and fhe stop payment instructions niade credit entory in the pass book of Shri V. K. Shukla. However, no paynient again.st fhe saoie could be niade aad the eiitry m fhe pass book was aiaiended later on. It appeare fhat tfae petitioner has aot couducted hioiself m such a way as to invite charge of misconduct. Misconduct ofa Baak employee which is punishable inider Regulation 24 offfae Conduct Regulations, 1976^ rcads as under:" <e24. A brew^z of any of tfw provisions of these regulations shall be deemed io constitute a misaynduc^ pumslwble wzder tlw Uco Bank Offioer Employees' (Disdplifie and Appeal) Regulaiions, 1976." 19. The relevaiit provisions of the Conduct Regulations, 1976 are Regulations 3, 4, 5, 6 aad 19, which rcads as under:- <S3. (1) Every offioer e^nploifee shall at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect tfie interesis of the bank and disckarge Hs duties with utnwst iniegrity, honesty, devotion n and diligence and do nothing which is unbecsjnung of a bank qffzcer. (2) Every offif^r einployee shall niaintain good ^mnduct and disdpline and show c^urtesy and atteniion to all persons in aU transacdons and negotia^Qt^s. (3} No officsr einploifee shaff, in tfw peffofmance of his offidcsJ duties or in ihe ex^rdse ofpowei's ajnfen'ed on hsm, act otfwnmse than in his best judgement e}(^ept zohen fw is acting under the direction ofhis offidalsupenor (4) Every officer employee shall take all possible steps to ensure the integtity and devQtion io duty of csll pemorw for ihe time being ufider his control and authority, €€4. Evejy offiosr ejnployee shall maintain the strictest secrecy regarding ihe bank's cffm^s and the cffcnm of iis consiituents and shaJl rzof divulge direclly or indirectly any if]fb?mation of a cotifidential nature either to a member of the public or io an outside agefwy or to any other employee of tfie bank fwi entitled to such infofmaiwn unless - fi) dhmlgfng of such infortnatiQn is in aa^rdance wiih the laiu or in acmrdaiu^ imth the practices m^d usages customn?y anion^t banks; fii) fie is compelled io divulge such it]fofmation byjudiaal or other autfwrity; (iii) inst?zicted to do so by a superior officer in tfw disdiarge ofhisduties9 f5. (1) No offic^r employee shaH use his position or influefwe directlif or if7directlif to secure emplQynient for any persQn related^ whether by blood or mjaniage to the employee or io tfw employee's zmfe or husbmzd, whether such a pe^son is dependent on tfw employee or not (2} No Qffiwr emptoyee shaV, exwpi with tfw prior pennission of ifw compefenf autJw^rity pennit his son, daugMer, or mzy other mern&er o/ his fanuly to w^ept e?r^ployjnent in any prwafe wzdeiiaking zuith which fw has offiaal decdin^ or in any other undertakuzg haviizg to his kfwiuledge offidal dealin^ with ihe bank: Ift- ii 1 12 Provided ifzat where tfw acceptajwe of the einployment cnnfwt azuait prior pefrmssion of tfie Competent AufhDfity or is otfzenmse a^nsidered urgent the ^naiter shall be reported io tfw Competent Autfwrity within three tr^onths fiwn ths date of tfw receipi ofthe offer of employ^nent; and ilw emploifment maybe acc^pted provisiotyilJy subjeet to ihe pennission of the Competent Autfwrity, No offi(^r emplQyee shaU, in tfw discharge of his offidaS duties, knowingly gf'ant or authGfise the grant of any advance or banking fcsdlities to or enter into or authorise eniering info by or on behalfofthe bcmk any contract, agreement, arf'angejnent or proposal in any maiter or given or smwtion any contract or loan to any undefiakif^ or personif any mem&er o/ his fcnni?y is employed in tfzat ufzcSertakifig or under i?uit person or iffie or any member of his fajnily is employed in that unde?~takujg or ufuler tl^it pef^son or if he or any tTwinber of his fcmiily has interesis in such matters or contracts in any ottwr fuamwr and ihe officer employee shall refer every such matter or coniract or loan to his superior officer and the matter or contract or loan shall tfwreafter be disposed or acc^rding to tfw instfuclions of the authoriiy to wfwm suc^i reference is made. E}(ptanaiion : A pereon is nof deemed to hai^e arzy interest in an undertakuzg for the purpose ofthis sub-regulation, ifhe is only a sharefwlder having fwt nwre than 2 per of tfw paid up c^ipital ofthe undertaki?^ in hfe na?n€.ff <{6.(lj No offiwr employee shall, exc^pt wiih the previous san^ion ofthe bank, engage directly or ifidirectty in any trade or busirwss or ufjdertake any other employnent: Pf'ovided ihai an officsr employee may, witfwut such saru^ion, undsrtake hoiwrwvy work ofa sodalor cfzariiable nature or oaMsioriaf work of a literary, artistic, sdentific, professiQnal, cultural, eduaitional, religious or social chararfer, subject to ihe ajndition that his offzdcd duties do not thereby suffer; but he shall not undertake, or shafl dis(^)ntinue such worfc ifso direcded by tfw caupetent authority. iS'»^Ss....K-..^S£a; 13 ^ 20. Explmintioti: Canvassit^ by mz offiwr employee in support of ifw business qf insuranc^ agency or oomjrussion agency, owtzed or nianaged by a memher ofhis fmnily shall be deemed to be a breach ofthis sub-regulation. (3) Bvef-y offic^r employee shall repofi to ffw bank if mzy member of his farmly is engaged in trade or business or oi^ns or manages an insurafzw agefu^y or c^immsston ageizcy. (3} NG officer employee shaU, imthout the prewous sanedQn oftlw bank, e^^ept in tfw disd^irge ofhis official duties, take pwl in tfw registration, promotion or mmwgement of any bank or cmnpany which is required to be registered under tfw Cofnpanies Ari, 2956 (1 of 1956} or mzy otfwr taw for the time &emg in forc^ or any <yQ»operatwe sodety for aj?nsnerdal piirposes: Pf'oznded tfint an offic^ efnployee may take pmi in registfatwn proniodon or mn^^ngement of a c^o-operative sodety registered under tfw CG-Gperaiwe Soaeties Act, 1912 ( 2 of 1912) or any other law for the iime beif^g in foi^e, or of a Hterary, saenfific or charitable sodety regisfered un^r the Soaeties Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860} or any c^frespondin^ law inforce. (^j NQ offiwr employee shall cwoepi any fee for any zvork done by him for mzy public body or any private pef-son imifwu^ the sanction ofthe Competeni Authority, (S^ No officer employee shall aat as an agent of, or caru/ass busir^ss infai^our of, an Insuranw Company or Corporations m his i^ividual aipaaty.9 ^19. An offiwr employee shall so mamige his private affaif^ as to avoid habitaal itidebtedness or insolvency. An officer employee against whom any legal proceedifi^ are itwtituted for the reoDvejy ofany debt duefrotnhim orjbr af^udgirig him as an insolveni shaUfoHhwiih report the full facts ofthe legal proceedifigs to ttw bank.ff Reading all the provisions of the Conduct Regulations, 1976, violation ofwhich constitiite a misconduct piuiishable under the Uco Bank OflRcer Eniployees^ (Discipline ao.d Appeal) Regulatious^ 14 ^ 1976, fherc is no rcgulation which provides fhat a baak employee canuot have