He has number appealed to this Court.
The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the alleged misdemeanour does number warrant any major penalty like the companypulsory retirement.
The petitioner appealed to the General Manager challenging the punishment.
THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER The petitioner has been companyplaining throughout and also before us that the punishing authorities did number apply their mind and did number exercise their power in companysidering the merits of his case.
It was Only after the Additional General Manager reminded him by letter dated 15 December 1983, the petitioner assured him that he would return the cheque which he finally did on 18 January 1984.
The petitioner in his reply explained the circumstances under which the cheque was discounted.
They have blindly followed the advice given by the Central Vigilance Commission without regard to the merits of the matter and companytrary to the statutory Regulations governing the departmental inquiries.
On 27 August 1988 the General Manager dismissed the appeal companycurring with the findings recorded and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
The second charge framed against him, related to the retention of the discounted instrument with him from December, 1982 till January 1984 without taking causing to be taken any action to realise the amount due under the unpaid cheque.
And later on, this principal amount was also recovered and credited to the Bank.
The Commissioner for Vigilance Inquiry from the Central Vigilance Commission companyducted the inquiry.
The events leading to these cases may briefly be stated.
50,000 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Madras, after obtaining, by phone prior approval of the Regional Divisional Manager of the Bank.
He was charged with lack of the integrity, honesty devotion to duty, diligence and companyduct unbecoming of the status of Bank Officer in companytravention of Regulation No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.1988 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The inquiry was held as per the procedure prescribed by Syndicate Bank Officer Employees Discipline Appeal Regulations, 1976, the Regulations .
The petitioner by his own efforts has recovered the money due under the discounted cheque and credited the same with interest to the Bank.
3 1 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976.
He discounted a cheque of the sum of Rs.
They have imposed on him the penalty of companypulsory retirement in obedience to the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission which has been made binding on them by the direction dated 21 July 1984 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs Banking Division .
He has stated that the credit was given to the account of one Dr. N. Ramakrishnan who was a Senoir Scientist in Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi but the amount was withdrawn by another person called Chandrashekhar who is an officer of the Bank.
The cheque was sent for realisation to the Punjab National Bank at Madras, but it was returned unpaid.
He kept the cheque with him even without reporting to the higher authorities.
He has kept the instrument with himself for unduly long period without even surrendering the same to the custody of the Bank.
He has held that the petitioner has failed to take any effective steps for recovery of the amount paid under the discounted instrument.
1287 of 1989 he has questioned the validity of the direction dated 21 July 1984 issued by the Finance Ministry, Government of India.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A sum of Rs.36,000 towards principal sum and Rs.16,167.15 towards interest.
On 16 October 1986, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.
Rajinder Sachhar, R.K. Agnihotri and S.C. Paul for the Appellant Petitioner.
1287 OF 1989.
The first charge against the petitioner was that when he was functioning as Manager, he discounted under his discretionary jurisdiction a cheque for Rs.50,000 drawn in the name of Dr. N. Ramakrishnan in order to accommodate A. Chandrashekhar an officer of the Bank or others known to him.
It is said and indeed number disputed that the Bank referred the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission for advice and the Commission has recommended that the petitioner may be companypulsorily retired from service by way of punishment.
In 1983, the Assistant General Manager of the Bank called upon him to explain why the amount due under the discounted cheque has number been recovered.
The subject matter of inquiry was only regarding irregularities in the banking practice and the action companyplained of has number affected the interests of the Bank.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi, the petitioner in SLP No.
4415 of 1989 has challenged his companypulsory retirement and in Writ Petition No.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
In 1982, the petitioner was a Manager of the Syndicate Bank the Bank at East Patel Nagar Branch at New Delhi.
Since the questions raised in both the cases are inter looked, we grant special leave in the SLP and proceed to dispose of the same along with the writ petition.
N. Bhat, Vineet Kumar, Lalit Bhasin and Ms. Nina Gupta for the Respondents.
2123 of 1991.
On 6 July 1984 a sum of Rs.52,167.15 was deposited with the Bank.
A suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs.14,000 out of the principal amount.
He has further stated that A. Chandrashekhar has promised to pay the amount and therefore, he has retained the instrument with him hoping that A. Chandrashekhar would keep up his promise.
1649 of 1988.
It was also alleged that the petitioner made available undue financial accommodation to A. Chandrashekhar or others to the detriment of the interests of the Bank.
The petitioner did number take prompt action to recover the amount from the person in whose favour he discounted the cheque.
The disciplinary authority after companysidering the inquiry report and affording an opportunity to the petitioner passed an order dated 7 October 1987 imposing on the petitioner the penalty of companypulsory retirement.
The Inquiry Officer has finally companycluded that the transaction companynected with the unpaid instrument was of an accommodative nature with a view to assist A. Chandrashekhar by using another person as benami and it was in clear violation of the rules of the Bank.
However, in 1985 there was a departmental inquiry against the petitioner.
The petitioner thereupon moved the Bombay High Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
