TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 19 (2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, inter alia, UCO Bank Officer Employees' Services Regulations, 1979. The Government of India launched a scheme known as 'Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana' (PMRY) with an objective to provide sustained employment to 10 lacs educated unemployed Urban Youth, the salient features whereof, inter alia, are as under : "a) The scheme would cover whole of the country from 1994-1995 onwards. b) The educated unemployed entrepreneurs would be given a subsidy of 15% subject to a ceiling of Rs.7500/- each for starting the micro-enterprises. c) The beneficiary would be required to bring 5% of the project cost as margin money. d) An eligible entrepreneur under the scheme could take a composite loan upto Rs.1 lac from a bank without a collateral guarantee project for formal sponsoring/recommending back to the branches for sanction." 4. The Reserve Bank of India issued guidelines/directions to work out the modalities in respect of implementation of the said scheme to the Scheduled Commercial Banks from time to time. Pursuant to one of such directions, the Board....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or had since been replied and in view of his request dt. 8.5.97 to keep Rs.50,000/- out of his terminal benefits as security against the loan advanced to Sh. Satinder Singh (PMRY case) and the letter was sent to you which was enclosed with our letter No. CDO/P/PER/97-98/1881 DT. 14.5.97. Accordingly, we have kept Rs.50,000/- in the shape of FDR for a 4 years 6 months with our Kohara branch. The present position of the loan account of Sh. Satinder Singh as of 20.3.98 is balance outstanding Rs.71,064/- with overdue of Rs. 9414/-. Sh. Satinder Singh had deposited in the said loan account of Rs.50,000/- as installments upto 20.3.1998 and the last instalment is due in June 2001. Sh. Capoor has since vacated the leased accommodation provided to him when he was posted as Manager at branch office Kohara and he has returned all the furniture provided at his residence less 4 regulators of fans and about Rs.2500/- has been claimed by the landlord as electricity bill pending against the said occupation which will be recovered from his terminal benefits. In view of the above facts, we recommend that Sh. Capoor should be allowed the terminal benefits after retirement and no RDA be initiated ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Not proved 8. The Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 27.09.1999, however, upon purported consideration of the findings of the Enquiry Officer as also the comments thereupon by the respondent, imposed upon the respondent, the penalty of removal from service. The appeal preferred there against was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 01.12.2000. 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. The learned Single Judge of the said Court, as indicated hereinbefore, allowed the Writ Petition in part opining that the respondent was guilty of commission of procedural irregularities in the matter of sanctioning and disbursing the amount of loans under the PMRY Scheme. The learned Judge arrived at a finding that the punishment imposed upon the respondent was grossly disproportionate, vis-'-vis, the gravity of charges framed against him and upon taking into consideration the fact that the respondent had an unblemished 40 years of service career. It was, thus, held that imposition of the said penalty after he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g : 1) The proposal of the Task Force for grant of loan for Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of setting up a cream separator was altered to dairy and a sum of Rs. 95,000/- was sanctioned therefor. 2) Two cheques for a sum of Rs.19,5000/- and Rs. 5,000/- were issued in favour of Shri Paramjit Singh, who is the real brother of the borrower Satinder Singh. 15. The charges of forgery and interpolation also are said to have been restricted to the said transactions only. 16. We agree with the contention of Mr Raju Ramachandran that ordinarily the High Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is also true that the officers of the bank enjoys a part of confidence in them event a Manager of a Bank is found to have embezzled or misappropriated any amount, or exceeded the jurisdiction in the matter of grant of sanction of loans, the Court takes a strict view of the matter. 17. The High Court, therefore, may not be correct in arriving at its opinion. However, as would appear from the discussions made hereinafter, initiation of the departmental proceedings itself, in our considered opinion, was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in terms of the said provision, the delinquent officer would be deemed to be in service although he has reached his age of superannuation. The departmental proceeding, it is trite law, is not initiated merely by issuance of a show cause notice. It is initiated only when a chargesheet is issued (See Union of India etc. etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman, etc. etc. reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010). This aspect of the matter has also been considered by this Court recently in Coal India Limited & others v. Saroj Kumar Mishra [2007 (5) SCALE 724] wherein it was held that date of application of mind on the allegations levelled against an officer by the Competent Authority as a result whereof a chargesheet is issued would be the date on which the disciplinary proceedings said to have been initiated and not prior thereto. Pendency of a preliminary enquiry, therefore, by itself cannot be a ground for invoking Clause 20 of the Regulations. Albeit in a different fact situation but involving a similar question of law in Coal India Ltd. (supra) this Court held : "13. It is not the case of the appellants that pursuant to or in furtherance of the complaint received by the vigilance department, the competent....