2693 of 2013 Page 2 of 9 Shukla was due to superannuate on 31st January, 1999.
Shukla denied the charges levelled against him but the Enquiry Officer submitted a report in which Charges 1 and 3 were proved while Charge 2 was number proved.
He has thus failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty, which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 as amended.
Undoubtedly the cheque was issued by Shukla on 25 th January, 1991 although he claimed his wife had signed the cheque but he directed the Bank to stop payment by a companymunication dated 6th March, 1991.
2693 of 2013 Page 3 of 9 Pradesh High Court.
Later, the departmental appeal filed by Shukla was dismissed.
III By availing loans and that also frequently, far in excess of the permissible amount against NSCs and FDRs without paying interest at the applicable rates, Shri R.S. Shukla has failed to discharge his duties with devotion, honesty and utmost integrity.
This act is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 as amended.
He will also number be entitled of the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are companypleted and final order is passed thereon except his own companytributions to CPF.
Regulation 20 3 iii reads as follows The officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will companytinue as if he was in service until the proceedings are companycluded and final order is passed in respect thereof.
Notwithstanding the stop payment companymunication, his brother presented the cheque for encashment on 2nd April, 1991 and it was temporarily encashed.
During the pendency of the departmental appeal, Shukla filed a writ petition in the Madhya A No.
An appeal filed by the Bank was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 7 th May, 2010 by the Division Bench of the High Court.
In view of the aforesaid Regulation, Shukla ceased to be in service on 31st January, 1999 on attaining his superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings against him companytinued.
The Disciplinary Authority came to the companyclusion that all three charges were proved and as far as Charge 1 is companycerned, he passed an order on 30 th June, 1999 dismissing Shukla from service which would ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.
It is under these circumstances that the present appeal was filed in this Court.
The companycerned officer will number receive any pay and or allowance after the date of superannuation.
A departmental appeal was filed by Shukla.
The articles of charge against Shukla were as follows Shri R.S. Shukla issued got issued a cheque on his joint account without making any arrangement of adequate balance and intention to honour it, only to cause wrongful benefit to his relative, at the companyt of the Bank.
The learned Single Judge numbered a few extremely relevant facts.
The writ petition was transferred to the Chhattisgarh High Court and by a judgment and order dated 21st December, 2006 the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 30 th June, 1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
A few days prior to his superannuation, the Competent Authority issued a letter invoking Regulation 20 3 iii of the UCO Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 for short the Regulations .
II Shri Shukla, by making available the official companyrespondence exchanged between regional office, Raipur and his branch to his son which he later quoted in his proposal for companypromise of Transport Loan availed by him, has number only acted against the interest of the Bank but also has deliberately divulged information of a companyfidential nature to a person his son, number entitled to it, which is violative of Regulation 4 of UCO Bank Officer Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 as amended.
1,000/ in his account did number amount to misconduct but was an action personal to him.
Madan B. Lokur, J. This appeal raises an interesting question of law on access to justice in a departmental inquiry.
Shukla was issued a charge sheet on 20th May, 1998 after about 7 years by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the UCO Bank Officer Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976.
