Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and M.K. Mukherjee

JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent was an officer in Scale-1 in the service of the Central Bank of India. While he was working as the Branch Manager, Pardeep Branch, he was suspended pending enquiry on November 21, 1988. On January 16. 1989, ten charges were communicated to him. 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. Charge No. 4 was held not established. On the basis of the said report, the appropriate authority dismissed the respondent from service. The appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed whereupon he approached the Orissa High Court by way of a writ petition. The High Court has allowed the writ petition holding that the charges held established against the respondent represent errors of judgment but not "misconduct". The High Court opined that though the respondent was guilty of doing many acts beyond his authority, it was not established that it was done with any ulterior motive or for any extraneous consideration. Since the Enquiry Officer has not 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 not established. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the order of punishment imposed upon the respondent was set aside and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The charges framed against the respondent are the following :

(1) The Petitioner took charge of the Branch from 29.9.86. At the time of taking over charge, there were number of overdrafts accounts. Instead of taking care for adjustment of such advances by constant follow up, he continued to extend the facility un-authorised and without any delegated powers even exceeding the outstanding balance as on 29.9.86 as a result bank's interest is likely to be jeopardised.

(2) The petitioner allowed clean overdrafts to several parties without any delegated authority and much beyond his discretionary powers, violating Central office guideline as a result he has exposed the bank to severe financial risk.

(3) The petitioner allowed drawings in cash credit and much beyond the sanctioned limits and or enhanced the existing limits in gross violation of his discretionary powers. As such, there is every likelihood that the bank's interest may be at stake.

(4) The petitioner sanctioned number of fresh cash credit limits to different parties much beyond his lending powers in violation of bank's norms and guidelines without proper documents and in some cases without any documents.

(5) The petitioner sanctioned a number of Term Loans directly without observing the bank's rules and guidelines.

(6) The petitioner unauthorisedly issued Bank Guarantee on behalf of different parties without intimating to R.O. The guarantees were issued and signed by himself as Br. Manager though on behalf of the Bank. While acting so he had not taken counter guarantee in some cases.

(7) While allowing unauthorisedly advances/TOD/other loans, the petitioner had not taken proper documents. Most of the documents taken were blank, undated, unstamped. Thus he had not safeguarded the interest of the Bank.

(8) The petitioner though made member of unauthorised irregular advances, allowed clean overdrafts, he had not submitted any Control Returns to the regional Office inspite of letters/reminders.

(9) The petitione........