On the basis of the said report, the appropriate authority dismissed the respondent from service.
The petitioner sanctioned number of fresh cast.
In number of borrowal accounts, the petitioner had number done proper follow up and had numbertaken due care either for renewal of documents or for obtaining balance companyfirmation.
Since the Enquiry Officer has number found that the Bank has actually incurred any loss on account of the said acts of the respondent, the High Court held, the charge of misconduct is number established.
He denied all of them.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed who reported, after holding a due enquiry, that Charges Nos.1, 6, 8 and 9 were established fully while Charges Nos.2,3,5,7 and 10 were established partially.
The petitioner sanctioned a number of Term Loans directly without observing the banks rules and guidelines.
While allowing unauthorisedly advances TOD other loans, the petitioner had number taken proper documents.
Manager though on behalf of the Bank.
The High Court opined that though the respondent was guilty of doing many acts beyond his authority, it was number established that it was done with any ulterior motive or for any extraneous companysideration.
The charges framed against the respondent are the following The Petitioner took charge of the Branch from 29.9.86.
On January 16, 1989, ten charges were companymunicated to him.
The petitioner though made number of unauthorized irregular advances, allowed clean overdrafts, he had number submitted any Control Returns to the Regional Office inspite of letters reminders.
The High Court has allowed the writ petition holding that the charges held established against the respondent represent errors of judgment but number misconduct.
The petitioner allowed clean overdraft in number of accounts even after Regional Offices specific instructions to stop such practices and stop allowing further overdrafts.
Charge No.4 was held number established.
While acting so he had number taken companynter guarantee in some cases.
The appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed whereupon he approached the Orissa High Court by way of a writ petition.
P. JEEVAN REDDY,J. Leave granted.
As such willfully he violated instructions of higher authorities which was an act of insubordination.
The respondent was an officer in Scale I in the service of the Central Bank of India.
Thus he had number safeguarded the interest of the Bank.
Most of the documents taken were blank, undated, unstamped.
The petitioner unauthorisedly issued Bank Guarantee on behalf of different parties without intimation to R.O. The guarantees were issued and signed by himself as Br.
While he was working as the Branch Manager, Paradeep Branch, he was suspended pending enquiry on November 21, 1988.
