Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, praying for quashing of the charge sheet dated 13.11.1998 as also the orders dated 27.09.1999 and 01.12.2000.
Admittedly he was allowed to superannuate on 1.11.1996.
The Letters Patent Appeal preferred against there has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the said Court.
The articles of charges against him read as under Sh.
1902 of 2001 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein challenging the companyrectness or otherwise of the orders dated 27.09.1999 and 01.12.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively, was allowed in part by companyverting the punishment of removal from the service of the respondent into companypulsory retirement with effect from the date of superannuation i.e. 01.11.1996.
The Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 27.09.1999, however, upon purported companysideration of the findings of the Enquiry Officer as also the companyments thereupon by the respondent, imposed upon the respondent, the penalty of removal from service.
3 had number been proved.
On the eve of his retirement i.e. on 30.10.1996, another show cause numberice was issued to him purported to be in companynection with the irregularities companymitted by him in sanctioning and disbursing loans under the said Scheme, while working as Branch Manager at Kohara Branch of the appellant Bank in 1996.
Curiously, despite the said recommendation, a charge sheet was issued on or about 13.11.1998.
Inter alia, on the premise that a sum of Rs.
CDO P PER/97 98/1881 DT.
The Regional Office of the appellant bank, however, recommended grant of terminal benefits in favour of the respondent, by a letter dated 14.05.1998 addressed to the Zonal Office of the appellant bank stating In respect of the irregularities companymitted by Sh.
Charge No.3 The CSOE failed to take all Not proved possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all persons under his companytrol and authority which is violative of Regulation 3 4 of the UCO Bank Officer Employees Conduct Regulation, 1976 as amended.
The appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 01.12.2000.
1 lac companyld number be recovered from the two borrowers, the retiral benefits were number disbursed.
The summary of the findings of the Enquiry Officer are as under Allegation No.1 First Part proved Second Part number proved Allegation No.2 2 a proved 2 b proved 2 c Not proved 2 d Proved 2 e Proved 2 f Not proved 2 g Not proved 2 h Not proved Second part Not proved Allegation No.3 Not proved Allegation No.4 Not proved Charge No.1 The CSOE had failed to Proved as per discharge his duties with discussions under utmost integrity, honesty, allegations 1 2 devotion and diligence which is violation of Regulation 3 1 of UCO Bank Officer Employees Conduct Regulation, 1976 as amended.
R.L. Capoor failed to take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all persons under his companytrol and authority which is violative of Regulation 3 4 of UCO Bank Officer Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976, as amended.
14.5.97.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In the disciplinary proceedings, the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 13.09.1999 opined that the Charges Nos.1 and 2 had been proved, whereas Charge No.
2739 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. C NO.
174 of 2006, affirming the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court in CWP No.
This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 08.09.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal No.
668 OF 2007 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
He made a representation therefor.
He was however, number paid his retiral benefits.
Charge No.2 The CSOE in exercise of powers Proved as per companyferred on him acted otherwise discussions under than in his best judgment which is allegations 1 2 Violative of Regulation 3 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees Conduct Regulation, 1976 as amended.
