Qazi Mohammad Ateeq vs Asst. General Manager Union Bank Of ... on 19 August, 2019

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Qazi Mohammad Ateeq vs Asst. General Manager Union Bank Of ... on 19 August, 2019

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2311

Bench: Rajnish Kumar





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 06 /Reserved
 

 
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 1464 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Qazi Mohammad Ateeq
 
Respondent :- Asst. General Manager Union Bank Of India Regional Office Lk
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Waseeq Uddin Ahmed,Qazi Mohd. Ateeq In Perso
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Chandrashekhar Sinha,Mohd.Altaf Mansoor
 

 
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

1. Heard, Shri Qazi Mohammad Ateeq, petitioner in person and Shri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the punishment order dated 16.05.2011 and appellate order dated 16.07.2012 and the inquiry report dated 31.01.2012 with a prayer for direction to respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith by giving all consequential service benefits to him and make payment of salary with interest from 16.05.2011.

3. The petitioner had joined the services of the respondent-bank on 18.09.1984 as Clerk-cum-Typist. He was promoted as Officer JMGS-1 on 16.05.2001. He was posted as Branch Manager in Khairabad Branch, District- Mau on 17.07.2007. In pursuance thereof he took the charge on 27.07.2007. A regular inspection was conducted by Assistant General Manager, Regional Audit Office, Varanasi on 26.05.2009 at Khairabad Branch. He detected some fake land records observed in various UGC and Tractor loan accounts during the period w.e.f. 17.05.2006 to 17.11.2008. The petitioner was served a charge-sheet containing article of charges dated 08.06.2010 by the Disciplinary Authority / Chief Manager Department (P), Field General Managers Office, Lucknow. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner was suspended by means of the order dated 11.06.2010 with immediate effect however the suspension order was revoked by means of the order dated 11.01.2011 on the basis of review of his case.

4. The respondents, not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, started the proceeding of the departmental inquiry and Shri S.K. Kapoor was appointed as Inquiry Officer. In the inquiry, two management witnesses, namely Shri P.K. Sarkar, Manager, R.A.O., Varanasi as MW-1 and Shri Biswas Kumar, Branch Manager, Khairabad Branch as MW-2 were examined, who were cross-examined by the defence. The petitioner had submitted written statement of defence. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report dated 31.01.2011 in which the allegations and the charges were found established / proved which was forwarded to the petitioner under the office memorandum dated 10.02.2011 calling his explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 07.03.2011 and other related papers. Thereafter the punishment order dated 16.05.2011 was passed by which the petitioner was awarded major punishment of retirement from service of the bank with immediate effect. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal on 14.07.2011 against the punishment order which has been rejected by means of the order dated 16.07.2012, which was communicated to the petitioner through letter dated 23.07.2012. Thereafter, after giving a notice dated 30.07.2012 to the Chairman and Managing Director, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Mumbai, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

5. Submission of the petitioner-in-person (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') is that the circular dated 28.09.1981, under observation of which the departmental inquiry has been held, is not applicable on the petitioner because the said circular has been issued for disciplinary matters of employees in clerical and subordinate cadre while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager and the allegations / charges levelled against the petitioner were in regard to the discharge of duties as Branch Manager. It is also apparent from the facts that the petitioner has been referred as Charge sheeted Officer (CSO) while clerical staff is referred as Charge-Sheeted Employee (CSE).

6. He further submitted that the audit report was submitted in regard to three branch managers but the three loan accounts at Sl. No.26, 27 and 28 of the audit report dated 26.06.2009 which were not of the period of petitioner, were included in the charge-sheet of the petitioner. The Auditor / Assistant General Manager had recommended for 100% verification of loan records obtained by the branch and suitable action against panel advocates who had given NEC's (Non-Encumbrance Certificates) without ascertaining genuineness of the land records alongwith other recommendations regarding First Information Report, initiation of recovery process and investigation from the vigilance angle etc., but no verification of land records were done.

7. The petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had granted loans totally on the basis of opinion given by the panel advocate Mr. Quazi Afzarul Haque who was appointed by the bank, as such, he was competent authority for verification of the property and checking of the records of property from revenue records. However said reports were found wrong and forged subsequently. Due to his wrong reports he has been de-panneld by the bank and his name was removed from the list of advocates working with the bank. Therefore if he had submitted the wrong report, on the basis of which the petitioner had granted the loans, he can not be penalized for the same as there was no other mode and requirement of verification of the records as per procedure prescribed in such cases, which has been admitted by the MW-2 i.e successor branch manager in his evidence.

8. He further submitted that in the inquiry it has nowhere come that the title of records were fake. The respondents have proceeded and punished the petitioner merely on the ground that land records are not available on the site of the Government i.e bhulekh.up.nic.in while the said site was not available at the relevant point of time when the loans were granted by the petitioner and there was also no requirement of verification of the records after the report of the panel advocate as there was no provision to cross-check the opinion of the panel advocate. There is also no charge against the petitioner regarding misappropriation, cheating and impersonation. The management witnesses have also admitted in their evidence that there is no report against the petitioner regarding integrity as well as honesty. No First Information Report has been lodged by the respondents therefore there is no vigilance angle also in the matter. The respondents have also not taken timely legal action for recovery of the loan amount from the borrower after shifting of the petitioner and there is no finding that the bank has suffered any financial loss. The Inquiry Officer is required to return findings on each articles of charge and the reason therefore under Regulation 6 (21)(I)(d) of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (here-in-after referred as Regulation 1976), but it has not been done, therefore the inquiry report is against the regulations and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

9. The petitioner also submitted that Shri D.K. Anand, Branch Manager, predecessor of the petitioner, was also charged with the same charges on the basis of same audit report but he has been awarded punishment of withholding of two annual increments with permanent effect while the petitioner has been compulsory retired in an arbitrary, illegal and biased manner. The respondents have levelled the charges and punished him on the ground that the land records produced to the bank were arranged by the charge sheeted officer, advocate and one middle man, referred as Pandit Ji at some places but neither the panel advocate nor the alleged middle man referred as Pandit Ji were produced. Identical findings have been recorded by the Inquiry Officer in regard to the petitioner and Shri D.K. Anand, the predecessor of the petitioner but the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of punishment and the petitioner has been awarded major penalty while he has been awarded the minor penalty.

10. He further submitted that the MW-2 had admitted in his evidence that the pre-inspection reports and post-inspection reports were on record except in certain cases. However, it is admitted by the witness that all the documents were got mortgaged. It was admitted by the management witness that the observations regarding fake records was based only on the report of second panel advocate. He also admitted that there is no information regarding availability of the bhulekkh site at the relevant time. One of the reports annexed as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition indicates that the report was submitted after verification from the record of last twelve years. In the circumstances the petitioner could not have been punished by major punishment. It has also been admitted that all the borrowers were existing and there is no case of impersonation and the MW-2 has admitted that due care of prior verification was carried out by the petitioner for selection of borrowers in all 38 accounts. It was also admitted by MW-2 that he had never met the alleged middle man. The findings regarding RTA registration are contrary to the evidence of the management witnesses.

11. On the basis of above, the petitioner submitted that the inquiry report was submitted contrary to the evidence and the material available on record therefore the inquiry report as well as the punishment order passed on the basis of same and the appellate order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed and the writ- petition is liable to be allowed.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the serious allegations were found against the petitioner in regard to his posting at Khairabad Branch as the petitioner had disbursed the loans on the basis of land records which were found fake therefore a detailed inquiry was conducted. The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity and thereafter a detailed inquiry report was submitted. The M.W.-2, successor of the petitioner had deposed against the petitioner and major irregularities were found in the accounts which are disclosed in the inquiry report. Since all the cases were sanctioned on the basis of fake land records therefore it was under investigation of the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing (EOW) C.B.I, Lucknow and the anomalies were found in various UGC and Tractor loan accounts therefore the action has rightly been taken against the petitioner.

13. He further submitted that the petitioner had not taken proper care in sanctioning the loans. He failed to carry out various pre-sanctioned formalities and also not taken proper care while obtaining the security documents and disbursing the loan amount. Similarly, sanction / post disbursement inspections were not carried out diligently. There were discrepancies in the loan applications. The loans were sanctioned without verifying the persons. So far as the application of the circular is concerned he submitted that the petitioner was discharging the delegated authority however in the matter of inquiry against the petitioner the regulations have been followed and the circular had been relied only to show that principles of the natural justice have been followed and there is no complaint by the petitioner in this regard.

14. On the basis of above, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the faith of the people in the bank has shaken by the conduct of the petitioner. Therefore the action has rightly been taken after a detailed inquiry and affording opportunity to the petitioner and he has been punished with the penalty of compulsory retirement. There is no illegality or error in it. The writ petition is misconceived and lacks merit therefore it is liable to be dismissed with cost.

15. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on records.

16. The petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Khairabad Branch w.e.f. 27.07.2007 to 17.11.2008, when he was transferred to the post of Accountant in the Branch of Padrauna. The regular inspection was conducted by the Assistant General Manager, Regional Audit Office, Varanasi on 26.05.2009 at Khairabad Branch. He detected some fake land records in various UGC and Tractor loan accounts during the period from 17.07.2006 to 17.11.2008 and submitted a report with certain recommendations on 27.06.2009.

17. It appears that in pursuance thereof the explanation of the petitioner was called and after considering the same the charge-sheet dated 08.06.2010 was issued and served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter the petitioner was suspended by means of the order dated 11.06.2010 which was subsequently revoked vide memorandum dated 10.01.2011. In the meantime, the proceedings of the inquiry were proceeded and two management witnesses were examined and after affording opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner, the inquiry report dated 31.01.2011 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. He found the allegations levelled against the petitioner established / proved and the following charges as well:-

1. Failure to perform his duties with utmost Proved honesty and integrity.

2 Failure to perform his duties with utmost Proved devotion and diligence.

3. Failure to take all possible steps to ensure Proved and protect the interest of the Bank.

4. Acting otherwise than in his best judgment Proved in performance of his official duties.

18. Thereafter, after communicating the inquiry report through memorandum dated 10.02.2011 and calling explanation of the petitioner, which was submitted by him vide letter dated 07.03.2011, the Disciplinary Authority / Assistant General Manager passed the punishment order dated 16.05.2011 by means of which the petitioner has been awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement from services of the bank with immediate effect. The departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order which has been rejected by means of the order dated 16.07.2012 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.07.2012. The petitioner, after giving a notice to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the bank dated 30.07.2012, preferred the present writ petition challenging the punishment order and the appellate order. Subsequently the writ petition has been amended and the inquiry report has also been challenged. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit as well as counter affidavit to amended portion of the writ petition against which rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the petitioner.

19. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to Circular dated 28.09.1981 is concerned, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner was discharging the delegated authority however the regulations have been followed in the enquiry and the circular has been relied only to show that the principles of natural justice have been followed. The petitioner has not made any complaint regarding the manner of holding of inquiry and violation of principles of natural justice. He has also not pointed out violation of the regulations in this regard. Therefore the enquiry can not be vitiated on this ground merely because the reliance has been placed by the respondents in counter affidavit.

20. The perusal of the inquiry report, the punishment order and the appellate order indicates that the article of charges were issued to the petitioner calling his reply. After submission of the reply, the date, time and place was fixed for holding inquiry in which two witnesses were produced by the department and the petitioner was also afforded opportunity of cross-examination and the petitioner has cross-examined the witnesses. The petitioner had also submitted his written statement of defence. After considering the evidence adduced during the inquiry and the material on record, the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer in which points raised by the petitioner were also considered. It was found in the inquiry report that there were several major irregularities committed by the petitioner. The loans were sanctioned on the basis of forged documents which were disbursed by the petitioner in short span instead of cropping season and requirement. Therefore the enquiry has been held after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in compliance of principles of natural justice.

21. So far as the submission of the petitioner regarding non-observance of Regulation 6 (21)(I)(d) of Union Bank of India officers/ employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 is concerned, it provides that on the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry authority shall prepare a report which shall contain the findings on each article of charge and reasons thereof. The perusal of the enquiry report indicates that the findings have been recorded in regard to all the charges though not in separate heads. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said regulation has not been followed and it cannot be vitiated on this ground.

22. The submission of the petitioner regarding forged report given by the panel advocate, who was subsequently depanelled, was also considered and it was found that he was not depanelled on account of the legal opinions given by him in the cases on the basis of which the loans were sanctioned by the petitioner. It has also been found that in all the cases the loans were sanctioned on the basis of report of only one panel Advocate Shri Q.A. Haque. The papers for the loan were arranged by the petitioner, the panel advocate and a middle man. The loans were sanctioned and disbursed in a short span instead of cropping season and requirement. The documents were found forged. The petitioner has taken a plea that he had sanctioned and disbursed the loan on the basis of report of the panel advocate but he was not produced. If the petitioner wanted to give any evidence against the documentary evidence he could have called or requested to call the said panel advocate. In fact he had admitted in his reply that he had followed the procedure which was being followed by his predecessor. He also submitted that the pre-sanctioned and post-sanctioned reports are also available but if the same would have been conducted properly with devotion and diligence, the irregularities must have come to light if it was not in his knowledge as claimed.

23. It is a settled principle of law that in the departmental inquiry, the inquiry is held on the basis of preponderance of evidence and the charge is not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt like criminal case. Looking to the inquiry report and the orders passed in pursuance thereof and material before this court, the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer does not seem to be erroneous or against the record. So far as the parity claimed by the petitioner with one Shri D.K. Anand, is concerned, the charge of failure to perform his duties with utmost honesty and integrity was not found proved against him while the said charge has been found proved against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit of it.

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of General Manager (P), Punjab and Sindh Bank Vs. Daya Singh; (2010) 11 SCC 233, has held that a perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at and unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration the finding cannot be said to be perverse. It has also been held that the scope of judicial review for the High Court in a departmental matter is limited. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental inquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:-

"22. In view of what is stated above, it is very clear that the Bank had taken the necessary steps to establish the misconduct before the enquiry officer. The relevant documents including ledger entries were produced through the witnesses concerned. The respondent fully participated in the enquiry. He had no explanation to offer during the course of the enquiry or any time thereafter. When all the relevant entries were in the handwriting of the respondent, the Bank did not think it necessary to call the borrowers. In fact, as the enquiry officer states, the respondent should have produced the borrowers if he wanted to contend anything against the documentary evidence produced by the Bank. In the circumstances, the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer as stated above could not have been held as without any evidence in support. The High Court has clearly erred in holding that the documents produced were neither detailed nor their nature was explained.

23. We are rather amazed at the manner in which the High Court has dealt with the material on record. The enquiry officer is an officer of a Bank. He was considering the material which was placed before him and thereafter, he has come to the conclusion that the misconduct is established. He was concerned with a serious charge of unexplained withdrawals of huge amounts by a Branch Manager in the name of fictitious persons. Once the necessary material was placed on record and when the charge-sheeted officer had no explanation to offer, the enquiry officer could not have taken any other view. The order of a bank officer may not be written in the manner in which a judicial officer would write. Yet what one has to see is whether the order is sufficiently clear and contains the reasons in justification for the conclusion arrived at. The High Court has ignored this aspect.

24. Absence of reasons in a disciplinary order would amount to denial of natural justice to the charge-sheeted employee. But the present case was certainly not one of that category. Once the charges were found to have been established, the High Court had no reason to interfere in the decision. Even though there was sufficient documentary evidence on record, the High Court has chosen to hold that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at. This has been held by this Court long back in Triveni Rubber & Plastics v.CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] . Unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration the finding cannot be said to be perverse. The legal position in this behalf has been recently reiterated in Arulvelu v. State [(2009) 10 SCC 206 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 288] . The decision of the High Court cannot therefore be sustained.

25. As held in T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai [(2006) 2 SCC 255 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 265] the scope of judicial review for the High Court in departmental disciplinary matters is limited. The observations of this Court in Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana[(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] are quite instructive: (SCC pp. 768-69, para 11) "11. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel[AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 4 SCR 718] the Constitution Bench has held: (AIR p. 370, para 23) ''23. ... the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not."

25. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik; (1996) 9 SCC 69, has held that no organization, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations.

26. Regarding the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a departmental inquiry, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bhola Nath Singh & Others; (1997) 3 SCC 657 has held that the High Court, in the proceedings under Article 226, does not act as an appellate authority but exercises within the limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:-

" 6. Under these circumstances, the question arises whether the High Court would be correct in law to appreciate the evidence and the manner in which the evidence was examined and to record a finding in that behalf. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. The High Court, in the proceedings under Article 226 does not act as an appellate authority but exercises within the limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. In this case, no such errors were pointed out nor any finding in that behalf was recorded by the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court examined the evidence as if it is a court of first appeal and reversed the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by disciplinary authority. Under these circumstances, the question of examining the evidence, as was done by the High Court, as a first appellate court, is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained."

27. In the case of State Bank of India Vs. Bela Bagchi; (2005) 7 SCC 435, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/ employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:-

" 15. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1194] , it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit which resulted in the case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance."

28. In the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan; (1998) 4 SCC 310, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer and if this is not observed, the confidence of the public/ depositors would be impaired.

29. Adverting to the facts of the present case, this court finds that the inquiry has been held in accordance with the regulations and in compliance of the principles of natural justice. The findings have been recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of material available on record and after considering the defence of the petitioner. The punishment order has also been passed in accordance with law after considering the explanation of the petitioner. It has been found that proper care was not taken by the petitioner while disbursing the amount and major portion of loan was disbursed in a short span of two months instead of crop season while requirement of the borrowers and post inspection reports were prepared in a very casual manner without incorporating the vital details in regard to the end use of banks finance. The loans were sanctioned beyond service area and the branch and in six loan accounts, part / residual amount of loan sanctioned was disbursed by the petitioner in the month of July, 2008 though his delegated authority was already suspended. The land holding requirement was also not adhered to and several other irregularities were found. The documents, on the basis of which the loans were sanctioned and disbursed in such manner have been found fake. The petitioner has failed to give any evidence to controvert all this and tried to raise some factual aspect which have no material bearing in view of reasonings given in the inquiry report and punishment order, therefore can not be looked into at this stage.

30. In the appeal, in fact, the petitioner has admitted that some supporting papers in loan processing were not taken however a plea has been taken that it was on account of huge work pressure and lowest staff strength. The petitioner has also raised a ground in appeal that the Inquiry Authority was relying on extraneous matter in its findings but has not pointed out even a single material or raised any material ground. Therefore this court is of the view that there is no illegality or error in the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of material available on record and punishment and appellate order.

31. In view of above, looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record this court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or error in the impugned orders which may call for any interference by this court.

32. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

22.................................. . .(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 19.08.2019 Haseen U. Court No. - 06 /Reserved Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 1464 of 2012 Petitioner :- Qazi Mohammad Ateeq Respondent :- Asst. General Manager Union Bank Of India Regional Office Lk Counsel for Petitioner :- Waseeq Uddin Ahmed,Qazi Mohd. Ateeq In Perso Counsel for Respondent :- Chandrashekhar Sinha,Mohd.Altaf Mansoor Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.