The article of charges served on the delinquent companytained four charges, namely I between the period September 14, 1999 to December 20, 1999, while recommending sanction of credit facilities and further enhancements in the account of M s. Dunroll Industries Limited, the delinquent failed to ensure that the proposal has been properly appraised processed and all the relevant information has been recorded in the process numbere II the delinquent recommended release of working capital facilities aggregating to Rs.
from the branch although the monitoring of unit at such a distant place was number possible III the delinquent recommended enhancement of Rs.
175 lac in the Bank Guarantee limit on November 17, 2000 in the account of M s. Dunroll Industries Limited without ensuring satisfactory companyduct of the account and without going into the details of the transactions and implications thereof and IV the delinquent released credit facilities in the account of M s. Dunroll Industries Limited without companyplying with the terms of sanction.
The delinquent challenged the order of penalty dated February 14, 2004 and also the order of the appellate authority before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The disciplinary authority was number satisfied with the delinquents response and imposed the penalty of removal.
The disciplinary authority General Manager companycurred with the view of the inquiry officer formed a provisional view that penalty of removal should be imposed on him and issued a show cause numberice to the delinquent in this regard.
It is against the said order that the present appeal is filed.
The inquiring authority after recording the evidence submitted its report on November 11, 2003.
The inquiry officer proceeded ex parte against the delinquent as he did number appear and recorded a finding that misconduct was proved.
The findings and report of the inquiring authority were sent to the delinquent who in response submitted his representation on December 15, 2003.
On March 17, 2003, Shri M.K. Ghosh, Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, was appointed inquiring authority to inquire into the above charges levelled against the delinquent.
The authority whose order is appealed against shall forward the appeal together with its companyments and the records of the case to the Appellate Authority.
The disciplinary authority companycurred with the findings of the inquiring authority and keeping in view the seriousness of charges and gravity of the proved companyduct, it imposed the penalty of dismissal vide order dated February 14, 2004.
It is this order which is impugned in the present appeal.
The delinquent submitted his reply and denied the charges.
An appeal shall be preferred within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against.
The delinquent then challenged the orders of the appellate authority and disciplinary authority before the 1 1986 3 SCC 103 2 1998 4 SLR 711 High Court in a writ petition.
The appeal shall lie to the Appellate Authority.
The appeal shall be addressed to the Appellate Authority and submitted to the authority whose order is appealed against.
The matter then reached this Court in an appeal by special leave.
The writ petition was dismissed and so also the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by him.
Charge I and Charge II were held to be partly proved while Charge III and Charge IV were held to be proved.
His appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority.
The delinquent preferred a departmental appeal before the Railway Board under the relevant Rules.
The appellate authority rejected the delinquents request for personal hearing and dismissed his appeal vide its order dated June 4, 2004.
The delinquent preferred appeal under regulation 17 of the 1982 Regulations assailing his dismissal order on diverse grounds and also requested for grant of personal hearing.
The brief facts leading to the above questions are these the respondent R.K. Uppal hereinafter referred to as delinquent faced departmental inquiry under regulation 6 of the 1982 Regulations for acts of omission and companymission companymitted by him while working as Senior Manager Incumbent In charge at 19 D, Chandigarh Branch.
64 lac in the account of M s. Dunroll Industries Limited for the unit located at Sikandarabad UP at a distance of approximately 300 k.m.
M. Lodha, J. Two questions presented for companysideration in this appeal by special leave, at the instance of the appellants Oriental Bank of Commerce and its General Manager are one whether in terms of regulation 17 of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1982 for short, the 1982 Regulations , the appellate authority is required to accord personal hearing to the respondent in a departmental appeal and two whether the order dated June 4, 2004 passed by the appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the respondent under regulation 17 suffers from infirmity for want of reasons.
