fraud or personal gain, the extent of loss actually attributable to him, or the proportionality of imposing a further pensionary consequence after the penalty of compulsory retirement had already been imposed. An order affecting pension cannot be sustained by a bare recital that “due process” has been followed. The order must disclose, at least in substance, the process followed, the authority which applied its mind, the material considered, and the reasons which led to the denial of full pension. 24. The Bank seeks to defend this by referring to documents suggesting that the Board was, in fact, consulted; however, if these records are taken into account, rather the distinction between “consultation” and “approval” becomes evident. The Bank’s internal records prove the matter was not placed before the Board as an open question. The 14th June, 2018 Board Agenda explicitly recorded that the Competent Authority, via a note dated 23rd March, 2018 “has sanctioned two-third Pension” and concluded the Petitioner “will be eligible” only for that reduced amount. Furthermore, the preparation of a pre-recorded “Draft Board Resolution” alongside the agenda, which already stated that the proposal “was considered and approved”, also indicates that the outcome was a predetermined conclusion. The Board on 22nd June, 2018, accordingly resolved to grant approval, without any deliberation, simply stating that “approval be and is hereby given”. This exercise was, thus, nothing but sanctioning a pre-determined outcome. The consultation with the Board, as contemplated under the provision, which requires an open consideration of the matter, is not borne out from the record.
