Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Robin Shah vs The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank ... on 21 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:53193] (1 of 22) [CW-8197/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8197/2023
Robin Shah S/o Shri Munna Shah, Aged About 38 Years, H.no.
313, Rathkhana Colony, Near Makkad Bhawan, Bikaner,
Rajasthan (Ex-Officer Scale-I, (I.d. N. 3998), Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank, Branch Khajuwala, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.),
Through Its Chairman, Head Office- Head Office- Tulsi
Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. The Chief General Manager (Vigilance), (Disciplinary
Authority), The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank
(R.m.g.b.), Head Office- Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. The Chairman, (The Appellate Authority), Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.), Head Office- Tulsi
Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order Order pronounced on : 21/01/2025 Order reserved on : 13/08/2024 REPORTABLE
1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved of the order dated 27.07.2022 (Annex.1), whereby pursuant to the departmental inquiry conducted against him, the disciplinary authority of the respondent bank has awarded him punishment of (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (2 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] 'Compulsory Retirement' and the order dated 14.11.2022 (Annex.2), whereby the appellate authority has rejected the departmental appeal preferred by him against the aforesaid order.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Officer Scale-I (junior Management Grade Scale-I) in the respondent bank vide appointment order dated 14.12.2013. After completion of probation period, he was given the charge of Branch Manager. While the petitioner was working at the Fatehgrah Branch of the respondent bank, a show cause notice (Annex.9) was served upon him, wherein it was alleged that he has violated the bank's circulars by sanctioning and disbursing loans to 5 farmers under KCC and ATL loan scheme beyond the limit for which he was authorized and thus, he wrongly used his discretionary powers. It was further alleged that the BMDP of these loans was not got noted to RBO office. Another allegation was that he falsely made claim of TA bills and got the bills cleared and he also cleared TA bills of his subordinate Chandra Prakash, which was not within his powers. Being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent bank proceeded to hold disciplinary inquiry against him in respect of the allegations contained in the show cause notice and accordingly, memorandum of charge-sheet dated 04.07.2020 alongwith article of charges was issued to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was put to face the charges under the Regulation 39(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees Service (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (3 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] Regulations - 2010 (for short, 'the Regulations of 2010'). In the charge-sheet, total 5 charges were levelled against the petitioner, which are as follows:-
nks"kkjksi.k fooj.k%& nks"kkjksi.k la[;k ,d& ifji= la[;k@dk-iz-iz-@106@2014&15 fnukad 30-10-2014 ds vuqlkj 'kk[kk izca/kd] Ldsy&1 dks iznRr foosdkf/kdkjksa dk mYya?ku dj dslhlh [kkrk la[;k 83038550272] 83037429178] 83037066064] 83036283376 ,oa 83037356946 esa izFke o"kZ gsrq :i;s 3 yk[k ls vf/kd dslhlh _.k lhek Lohd`r@forfjr dh xbZA nks"kkjksi.k la[;k nks& fuEukafdr _.k [kkrksa dh ch,eMhih {ks=h; dk;kZy; dks izsf"kr rks dh xbZ] ijUrq {ks=h; dk;kZy; ls vuqlj.k dj uksVsM ugha djok;h x;h gS tks ifji= la[;k@vfxze@123@2013&14 fnukad 24-01-2014 o ifji= la[;k@45@fuvads&1@2016&17 fnukad 28-01-2016 ds funsZ'kksa dh Li"V vogsyuk gSA %& 83038550272] 83037429178] 83037066064] 83036283376] 83037356946] 83038553193] 83037430296 nks"kkjksi.k la[;k rhu%& Jh jksfcu 'kkg us vius Lo;a dk ekg fnlacj] 2017 ds eksckbZy [kpZ dk iquZHkj.k jkf'k :
200@& fcuk fcy ds gh Hkqxrku ikfjr dj [kkrk la[;k 83007786747 esa fnukad 01-01- 2018 dks tek varfjr dj fn;k x;kA nks"kkjksi.k la[;k pkj& fnukad 03-03-2017] 21-03-2017] 22-03-2017 ,oa 23-03-2017 dh ;k=kvksa dk ;k=k HkRrk fcy fnukad 03-07-2017 jkf'k : 1500@& {ks=h; O;olk; dk;kZy; chdkusj ls Lohd`r fd;s fcuk gh dfe;ka n'kkZdj okil ykSVk fn;k x;k FkkA Jh jksfcu 'kkg us vius in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, l{ke izkf/kdkjh dh Lohd`fr ds fcuk gh fnukad 18-07-2017 dks mDr ;k=k HkRrk fcy dk Hkqxrku jkf'k :i;s 2250@& Lo;a ds [kkrk la[;k 83007786747 esa tek vUrfjr dj cSad fu/kh dk futh fgr esa nq:i;ksx dj xaHkhj foRrh; vfu;ferrk dh x;h gSaA Jh jksfcu 'kkg }kjk ifji= la[;k@dkiziz&06@69@2016&17 fnukad 16-08-2018 ds vuqlkj iznRr foosdkf/kdkjksa dk mYya?ku dj ;k=k HkRrk fcy fnukad 03-07-2017 jkf'k : 1500@& dk Hkqxrku jkf'k :i;s 2250@& ls vius Lo;a ds Lrj ls fd;k x;k gSaA nks"kkjksi.k la[;k ikap& ifji= la[;k dkiz@01@32@2017&18 fnukad 18-05-2017 ds vuqlkj iznRr foosdkf/kdkjksa dk mYya?ku dj fuEukafdr ;k=k HkRrk fcy Lohd`r dj Hkqxrku fd;s x;s gSaA%& dz- dkfeZd dk vkbZ- in uke ;k=k fnukad ;k=k HkRrk fcy Lohd`r Hkqxrku la- uke Mh-
jf'k fnukad jkf'k fnukad jkf'k fnukad
1- Jh pUnz 5123 vf/kdkjh 31-08-2017 ,oa 1580 09-08-2017 ugha ugha 1580 29-09-2017
izdk'k Ldsy&l 27-09-2017
2- Jh pUnz 5123 vf/kdkjh 26-07-2017] 3218 09-08-2017 & & 3018 11-08-2017
izdk'k Ldsy&l 27-07-2017] 200 19-09-2017
29-07-2017 ,oa
30-07-2017
(Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:53193] (4 of 22) [CW-8197/2023]
3. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet denying all the charges and pleading his innocence.
The respondent bank was not satisfied with the reply submitted, therefore, proceeded to hold regular disciplinary enquiry against him and appointed enquiry officer, who after conducting enquiry submitted the enquiry report dated 08.04.2022 (Annex.18), wherein he found all the charges proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and vide order dated 20.06.2022 proposed to impose the penalty of "compulsory retirement from service" and sought explanation in this regard from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation before the disciplinary authority and appeared in person before him. The disciplinary authority vide the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 (Annex.1) while declaring all the charges proved, awarded the punishment of "compulsory retirement from service without any service benefits" to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal against the aforesaid order, which too came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2022 (Annex.2). Being aggrieved of the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent bank suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that though the petitioner was directed to participate in the (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (5 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] enquiry proceedings and accordingly, he participated in the same, but the enquiry proceedings were just empty formality as most of the relevant record, which was important was not provided to the petitioner and none of the 5 loan account holders were called to give evidence. The written brief submitted by the petitioner was also not considered, wherein he clearly stated that there were total 21 loan accounts in which BMDP was got noted, but allegations were made in respect of 5 loan accounts only, alleging delay in reporting BMDP, whereas in all 21 loan accounts, loan limit was beyond 3 lacs, as the petitioner, though was holding the post of Officer Scale-I, but since the branch category was of Scale- II branch, as such, he was within his discretionary powers to grant loan beyond Rs.3 lacs. It was also submitted that on receiving audit objection, though he was entitled for TA claim, but he refunded the same. It was further submitted that he has rightly cleared the TA claim of his subordinate officer, against whom the bank has taken no action. It was also stated that out of 5 loan accounts, one account is closed, two accounts have received cash recovery and land is mortgaged in favour of the bank so bank money is secured. As regards drawing of telephone bill of Rs.200/- it was submitted that the petitioner was entitled for the same. It is submitted that no loss was caused on account of any action on part of the respondent. It is submitted that enquiry officer did not consider the defence evidence and the submissions of the petitioner and declared all the charges proved. Learned counsel further submitted that the disciplinary authority acted in gross violation of principles of natural justice and simply accepted (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (6 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] the findings of the enquiry officer without independent application of mind and did not ascertain whether the charges were carrying any serious misendeavour or minor in nature, simply awarded the harsh penalty of compulsory retirement, which is not only shockingly disproportionate and but also not commensurate to gravity of charges alleged against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel submits that the appellate authority while deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner did not consider the contentions and grounds raised in the memo of appeal and simply adopted the same language as used in the punishment order and passed a non-reasoned order rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner, which has resulted in denial of justice to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel in support of his contentions relied upon the following judgments :-
(1) Rattan Singh Sandhu Vs. Punjab & Sindh Bank [(2016 3 Scale 413] (2) Allahabad Bank Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari [(2017) AIR (SC) 330] (3) UOI & Ors. Vs. R.P. Singh [AIR 2014 SC 2541] (4) Union of India Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon [(2009) 2 SCC 541] (5) G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society [(2010) AIR (SC) 1105] (6) State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra [(2010) AIR (SC) 3131] (7) Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. State of U.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 539] (8) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujrat & Anr. [AIR 2013 SC 1513] (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (7 of 22) [CW-8197/2023]
7. Addressing the court on the point of penalty, learned counsel submits that though it is discretion of the disciplinary authority in regard to quantum of punishment to a delinquent employee, but that does not mean that he can exercise such power arbitrarily and at his whims and wishes, rather the punishment has to be awarded to a delinquent based on subjective satisfaction of disciplinary authority commensurate to gravity of allegations. Learned counsel submits that the charges in the case of the petitioner are related to petty errors in disbursement of loans while discharging duties as Branch Manager and there is no allegation that he has caused any financial loss to the respondent bank or committed any fraud, cheating, fabrication of documents or embezzlement. In such circumstances, awarding the harsh punishment of compulsory retirement to the petitioner cannot be said to be justified and commensurate to the gravity of allegations. Learned counsel has placed on record a number of punishment orders passed in the cases of various employees/officers of the respondent bank itself, where despite the allegations being serious in nature like sanctioning loans to persons outside the working area of the bank, withdrawing money from accounts by forging signatures, unauthorized use of ATM cards, embezzlement and cheating by changing account details, unauthorizedly revising the limit of KCC account, violation of circulars of the bank, sharing bank password with outsider, letting outsider work of the bank computer, letting the loan amount misused, taking commission from unauthorized middlemen for (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (8 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] sanctioning loan, transferring loan amount in the account of third party without mandate, not getting noted BMDP of the loans in the Regional Office, disbursing affordable housing loans in lumpsum instead of disbursing it as per progress of construction, disbursing loans without equitable mortgage, they have been retained in service while being awarded lesser punishment. Thus, it is prayed that even if this court is not inclined to interfere in the departmental enquiry proceedings, the matter may be considered on the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under Regulation 39(1)(b) of the Regulations of 2010, which provides for major penalty if the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved. The petitioner by sanctioning and disbursing loan beyond the limit prescribed has made the bank suffer huge loss. The other misconducts alleged against the petitioner have also been found proved in the disciplinary enquiry. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the departmental enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations of 2010 by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and following the principles of natural justice and there is no procedural infirmity in the entire process. Thus, in view of the plethora of judicial pronouncements made in this regard, the court should not interfere therein. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, looking to the serious misconduct of the (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (9 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] petitioner, which caused breach of trust, the appropriate punishment has been awarded to him, which does not call for any interference. Regarding lesser punishment awarded to other employees, learned counsel submits that each case has different facts and disciplinary authority has discretion to award appropriate punishment to delinquent in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the petitioner can neither compare his case with the other employees nor can he claim parity in regard to punishment.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the following judgments :-
(1) Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce [AIR 2007 SC 199] (2) Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Etawah & Ors. Vs. Hoti Lal & Ors. [AIR 2003 SC 1462] (3) United Bank of India Vs. Bachan Prasad Lali [AIR 2022 SC 943] (4) Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar [AIR 2003 SC 1571] (5) The Chairman, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. M.J. James [AIR 2022 SC 582] (6) The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena & Ors. [AIR 2022 SC 392]
10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent bank. Perused the material placed on record including the written submissions and the judgment cited at bar. (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (10 of 22) [CW-8197/2023]
11. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 is revealing that the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 04.07.2020 for the alleged irregularities committed by him while working as Branch Manager, Kharbara Branch, Bikaner branch of the respondent bank. The charge-sheet contained 5 charges, which are as follows :-
(i) The petitioner sanctioned KCC loan to 5 loan accounts beyond Rs.3 lacs limit by exercising his discretionary powers, which is beyond sanctioned loan limit.
(ii) He did not get noted BMDP to Regional Business Office about these 5 loan accounts.
(iii) He got payment of his telephone bill for an amount of Rs.200/- for the month of December 2017 without bill.
(iv) He cleared his own TA bill and paid Rs.2250/- to his own account number without obtaining sanction from the Regional Business Office.
(v) He by wrongly exercising his discretionary powers as Branch Manager sanctioned and paid TA bill of Rs.1580/- and Rs.3280/- to his subordinate officer Shri Chandra Prakash, Officer Scale-I, which is a serious misconduct.
The petitioner submitted his detailed written reply to the said charge-sheet explaining his stand. The respondent bank proceeded with the disciplinary enquiry and appointed enquiry officer. On closure of the evidence of the bank, the petitioner was provided opportunity to submit his defence, which he availed. (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (11 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] After conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report to the disciplinary authority, a copy of which was supplied to the petitioner on 19.04.2022 and he was asked to file his submissions. The petitioner filed his submissions on 17.05.2022. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report, the documents placed on record and the submissions filed by the petitioner, proposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Before imposing the penalty, the petitioner was provided opportunity to submit his defence/explanation, in pursuance whereof he appeared before the disciplinary authority on 27.06.2022, on which day, he was asked to submit his defence/explanation orally or in writing. The petitioner submitted his written response on 27.06.2022. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report, the response of the petitioner and the other documents available on record passed the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 awarding the penalty of 'compulsory retirement' to the petitioner.
11. It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere.
(Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (12 of 22) [CW-8197/2023]
12. In the above context, following are the observations made by a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India & Ors [1996 AIR 484] :-
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (13 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant."
13. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610] held as under :-
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;(Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:53193] (14 of 22) [CW-8197/2023]
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."(Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:03 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:53193] (15 of 22) [CW-8197/2023]
14. Applying the aforesaid yardstick in the case at hand, this court is of the considered opinion that though learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to point out certain procedural lapses in the departmental enquiry proceedings, but none of them convinces this court to interfere in the findings arrived at in the enquiry report and accepted by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry has been conducted by a competent authority in accordance with the relevant service regulations. The petitioner was provided multiple opportunities to present his defense, demonstrating adherence to procedural fairness. This reflects the bank's compliance with natural justice principles, but also underscores the petitioner's proactive engagement in defending his position. The finding of fact arrived at is based on evidence available on record. In view of the clear guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by various judicial pronouncements, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard are of no help to the cause of the petitioner. Thus, the prayer made by the petitioner seeking interference in the enquiry proceedings is turned down.
15. The next issue raised before this court is regarding the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner being disproportionate to the charges levelled. In this regard, I have gone through the Service Regulations of 2010 applicable to the officers and employees of the respondent bank, a perusal of which is revealing that no classification has been made therein regarding (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (16 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] as to which misconduct would attract major penalty and which misconduct would attract minor penalty. In absence of the above, it is left at the discretion of the disciplinary authority to decide under which provision a delinquent is to be punished. In the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner, 5 charges have been levelled against the petitioner. Out of these 5 charges, charge No.2 to 5 are apparently of not such grave nature which may persuade the employer to dispense with the services of the delinquent. It appears that it was the charge No.1 for which the petitioner has been awarded the harsh punishment of compulsory retirement without service benefits. A bare reading of the charge No.1 is revealing that the petitioner while working as Branch Manager exceeded the limit for which he was authorized to sanction and disburse KCC loans, which was in violation of circular dated 30.10.2014 issued by the respondent bank. It is relevant to note that no allegation of misappropriation of funds, fraud, cheating, embezzlement, creation of forged documents or receipt of illicit consideration in lieu of the aforesaid act has been levelled against him. It is not a hidden fact that the officers are of the banks are under immense pressure to meet the targets, even then violation of any circular cannot be left unattended. However, awarding punishment to a delinquent, circumstances of the case, gravity of the charge and past record of the delinquent has to be taken into account. The disciplinary authority exercises quasi judicial powers and has discretion in regard to quantum of punishment. However, such discretion is not completely unfettered. The punishment has to be awarded in proportion to (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (17 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] delinquency. The absence of allegations like misappropriation of funds or personal gain significantly differentiates the petitioner's case from graver misconduct typically warranting harsher penalties. The principle of proportionality necessitates that the punishment corresponds with the gravity of the misconduct. Here, the petitioner's actions, though in breach of procedural limits, lack any criminal intent or severe repercussions on the bank's financial health. Therefore, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement appears disproportionate. In the opinion of this court, for the delinquency of the petitioner in the case at hand, the punishment awarded is very harsh and not in accordance with the gravity of the charges, which has shaken the conscience of this court.
16. The petitioner has cited a number of orders issued by the disciplinary authority of the same bank, wherein the charges against the delinquents are much graver than those in the case at hand, however, still the persons concerned have been retained in service while awarding lesser punishments. The charges alleged in those cases were in the nature of sanctioning loans to persons outside the working area of the bank, withdrawing money from accounts by forging signatures, unauthorized use of ATM cards, embezzlement and cheating by changing account details, unauthorizedly revising the limit of KCC account, violation of circulars of the bank, sharing bank password with outsider, letting outsider work of the bank computer, letting the loan amount (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (18 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] misused, taking commission from unauthorized middlemen for sanctioning loan, transferring loan amount in the account of third party without mandate, not getting noted BMDP of the loans in the Regional Office, disbursing affordable housing loans in lumpsum instead of disbursing it as per progress of construction, disbursing loans without equitable mortgage. Though it is true that the petitioner cannot claim parity in the matter of punishment in disciplinary enquiry vis-a-vis delinquents in different matters, but the fact remains that the disciplinary authority, having quasi judicial powers, has to exercise discretion vested in it judiciously and not in a manner that for less grave charges a harsh punishment is awarded and for graver allegations a person is awarded minor penalty. The cited precedents within the respondent bank highlight instances of more severe misconduct resulting in lesser penalties. This comparative leniency towards graver offenses raises questions about consistency in the bank's disciplinary measures, reinforcing the argument for reassessment of the petitioner's penalty. The aforesaid instances have also attributed to reaching the conclusion that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is on higher side and not in proportion to the gravity of the charges.
17. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant law in regard to scope of judicial review in the quantum of punishment in departmental proceedings. (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (19 of 22) [CW-8197/2023]
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of India & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 2075], while discussing the law on the scope of judicial interference by the constitution courts in the matter of punishment in disciplinary proceedings held that domain of the courts on the issue of quantum of punishment is very limited. It is the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority, which decides the nature of punishment keeping in mind the seriousness of the misconduct committed. This would not imply that if the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court the courts are denuded of the authority to interfere with the same. Normally even in such cases it may be appropriate to remit the matter back for consideration by the disciplinary/appellate authority. However, one other cause for interference can be where the plea raised is of parity in punishment but then the pre- requisite would be that the parity has to be in the nature of charges made and held against the delinquent employee and the conduct of the employee post the incident.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 611], held as under:-
"Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the "decision- making process". The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (20 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court-martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review."
20. In Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. [AIR 2016 SC 101], The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"24. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules.
25. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) then the Courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the punishment.
26. Such power is exercised when the Court finds that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (21 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges thereby shocking the conscious of the Court or when it is found to be in contravention of the Rules. The Court may, in such cases, remit the case to the appointing authority for imposing any other punishment as against what was originally awarded to the delinquent employee by the appointing authority as per the Rules or may substitute the punishment by itself instead of remitting to the appointing authority."
21. Coming back to the case at hand, the punishment of compulsory retirement not only abruptly terminates the petitioner's career but also deprives him of service benefits, posing severe financial and professional hardships. A more measured penalty would suffice in upholding discipline while allowing the petitioner to maintain a dignified professional standing. Referencing cases like Ranjit Thakur (supra) and Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj (supra) underscores the judiciary's stance that punishment should not be so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the court. These precedents bolster the argument for moderation in the petitioner's penalty. An authority, who has a discretion on certain points, cannot be allowed to exercise his discretion according to his whims and fancies, arbitrarily, perversely or capriciously and in apparent discriminatory manner, rather such discretion has to be exercised judiciously. Parity and equal treatment in exercise of discretion must be shown. The respondent bank being an entity of the Government of India is expected to adhere to above norms. This court is cognizant of the fact that the scope of judicial review in (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53193] (22 of 22) [CW-8197/2023] matter of quantum of punishment in disciplinary proceedings is limited and interference has to be made sparingly. However, present one is such a case in which it is felt that the punishment awarded to the delinquent is excessive, arbitrary and wholly disproportionate to the gravity of charges, which shakes the conscience of the Court persuading to make interference therein.
22. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.06.2022 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the appellate authority are set aside to the extent of awarding punishment of 'compulsory retirement' to the petitioner and affirming the same. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority for reconsidering the case in regard to quantum of punishment awarded in pursuance of the departmental enquiry and to pass a fresh order awarding suitable punishment to the petitioner commensurate to the gravity of the charges, other than compulsory retirement, removal from service or dismissal from service.
23. Compliance of this order be made by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(FARJAND ALI),J Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:16:04 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)