Bank officer misconduct: repeated unauthorised lending and disobedience can justify discipline even without actual loss.

Repeatedly sanctioning unauthorised overdrafts, loans, guarantees and other advances beyond delegated authority, while also disobeying instructions and failing to submit control returns, amounted to misconduct under the service regulations. The officer's sustained course of conduct breached the duty to protect the bank's interests, act with integrity and diligence, and remain within authorised limits; that breach engaged misconduct under the disciplinary code. The absence of actual loss in some instances did not change the character of the conduct, because repeated unauthorised action undermined bank discipline and exposed funds to risk. The view that the conduct was merely an error of judgment was rejected, and the disciplinary punishment was not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether an officer of the bank, who repeatedly acted beyond his authority in sanctioning overdrafts, loans, guarantees and other advances, and also disobeyed instructions and failed to submit required returns, committed misconduct under the applicable service regulations.

Analysis: The established findings showed a sustained course of conduct over a long period in which the officer granted unauthorised overdrafts, exceeded lending powers, issued guarantees without authority, failed to send control returns, and continued the prohibited practice despite instructions to stop. Under Regulation 3, every officer was bound to protect the bank's interests, act with integrity and diligence, and act within the limits of authority and best judgment. Breach of that regulation constituted misconduct under Regulation 24. The absence of actual loss in some instances did not alter the character of the conduct, because repeated action beyond authority itself undermined bank discipline and exposed public funds to risk. The High Court's view that such conduct was merely an error of judgment was rejected.

Conclusion: The conduct amounted to misconduct and violation of Regulations 3 and 24; the disciplinary punishment could not be interfered with on the ground accepted by the High Court.

---