A.D.Padhye vs State Bank Of India
2017 Latest Caselaw 5229 Bom

                                                                           WP 1883-2003.doc

DDR

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1883 OF 2003



       A.D. Padhey of Mumbai Indian
       Inhabitant having his address
       at State of Bank of India
       Shivaji Park Housing Society
       Balgovindas Road, Mahim,
       Mumbai 400 016.                                               ...Petitioner

               vs.

       State Bank of India
       having its Vigilance Department
       and Local Head Office at Post
       Box No.10003, Madame Cama Road,
       Mumbai 400 021.                                               ...Respondent



       Mr. Yash Tiwari i/by K.P. Tiwari & Co., for Petitioner.
       Mr. Rupesh Ramchandra Lanjekar, for the Respondent.



                                         CORAM                         : A.A.SAYED AND
                                                                          M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 17th JULY 2017

PRONOUNCED ON : 31st JULY 2017

WP 1883-2003.doc

JUDGMENT (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.) :-

The petitioner was working as Assistant General

Manager with the respondent-bank and was heading Personal

Banking Division. The petitioner is challenging the order dated

8th March, 2000 compulsorily retiring the petitioner pursuant to

the Departmental Inquiry held against him in respect of the

transactions relating to the Securities Scam of 1991-92. The

transactions in question were carried out by the Securities

Division, Mumbai Main Branch of the respondent-bank and the

bank alleges that the same resulted in loss of Rs.812 crores to

the bank which may be very difficult to recover. The petitioner

was served with a charge-sheet dated 23 rd November, 1993 as

regards irregularities and malpractices at Securities Division,

Mumbai Main Branch, Mumbai. The petitioner while working as

Assistant General Manager of PBD has committed certain serious

irregularities in discharge of his duties which as per the Articles

of Charge are as under :-

ARTICLE-I Shri Harshad S. Mehta, a broker was maintaining his personal account Current A/c.No.4/87/10 in the Personal Banking Division of Bombay Main Branch. Debit/Credit vouchers

WP 1883-2003.doc

emanating from the Investment Cell of the Securities Division of the Branch were allowed to be put through the aforesaid account maintained in the Division of Sh. A.D. Padhye despite the following unsatisfactory features :

(a) If Shri H.S. Mehta or his firm was/were to sell or purchase securities and transactions were to be routed through his current account, for purchases, his account was to be debited and full particulars should have been noted/written on the vouchers and similarly for sales. The relative Bankers cheques were to be issued or received and these were to be dealt with by the Section of the Securities Department at Bombay Main Branch who were dealing with the sale and purchase transactions for the Bank's customers. Instead, debit/credit vouchers with incomplete details originated by the Bank's Investment Cell in the Securities Division (who were to deal with Bank's own purchase and sale of securities) representing payments made to counterparty Banks on account of purchase of securities from them or receipts from counterparty Banks on account of sale of securities to them were freely allowed to be routed through the said account. A few instances of such transactions are given in Annexure 'A' of the charge-sheet.

(b) The vouchers referred to above which were passed by Shri R. Sitaraman, Officer JMGS I (now under suspension) at the Investment Cell for debit of the said account maintained in his Division were put through without any verification and/or scrutiny by his Division.

(c) Shri R. Sitaraman, Officer JMGS I who was posted in the Investment Cell of the Securities Division was vested with passing powers upto Rs.25,000/- only. Sh. Padhye, however, allowed the debits passed by Shri Sitaraman, an official from another Department, much in excess of the passing powers delegated to him, to be debited to the Current Account of Shri H.S. Mehta, maintained in his Division. He thus abdicated the control expected to be exercised by him as Manager of P.B. Division over the transactions passing through his Department and he had allowed Shri R. Sitaraman to continue his nefarious activities without any check. A few instances of such transactions are given in Annexure 'A' of the charge-sheet.

ARTICLE-2 He failed to scrutinise daily the vouchers routed through

WP 1883-2003.doc

his Division as required in terms of paragraph 47 of Chapter II of the Bank's Book of Instructions, Vol.I. Had he done this, as expected of him, the fraudulent transactions put through by Shri R. Sitaraman could have been detected in time.

ARTICLE-3

He recommended to the Dy. General Manager, Bombay Main Branch on the letter dated 10.1.92 (a copy of which is enclosed at Annexure 'B' of the charge-sheet) addressed by Shri Pankaj V. Shah for Shri Harshad Mehta to the SBI Main Branch, Personal Banking Division (for attention of Mr. Padhye) requesting the facility of issuing Bankers Cheques against presentation by the broker of Bankers Cheques drawn in favour of SBI, as under :-

"DGM - This is one of the valued customers and the request of his is genuine. We recommend that the same may be accepted. The Co. is keeping good float funds with us. We have requested the Firm to start keeping some money in TDR with us." Initialed/- 10.1.92. His further remarks as under with date and initials also appear on the letter.

"DGM - They have assured Rs.25 lacs in TDR this month out of which Rs.5 lacs received on 13.1.192". Initialed 14.1.92.

(a) Before recommending the proposal, he failed and/or neglected to ascertain :-

(i) How the request was considered genuine by him ?

(ii) Why the Bankers cheques in favour of other Banks were to be issued out of Bankers Cheques issued by other Banks in favour of State Bank when the transactions and the purpose for which the Bankers cheques were issued in the name of State Bank and the Bankers cheques to be issued in the name of the other Banks was not known ? He deliberately remained silent on the point and in addition misled the DGM about the so called genuine request of the firm as it by keeping some deposit with the Bank, the grave risks were covered.

(b) The letter dated 10.1.92 addressed to the SBI Main Branch, P.B. Division, marked for his attention, makes a reference to their

WP 1883-2003.doc

earlier letter of 19.8.91. "Ignoring this letter and making no efforts to know its contents, he recommended to accede to the request of Shri Harshad S. Mehta to the detriment of bank's interest.

(c) He did not enquire before or after recommending to the DGM that the practice of issuing Bankers Cheques against the Bankers Cheques brought in by Shri Harshad Mehta in favour of the Bank was already going on. Had he enquired that the actual position obtaining would have been avoided. For his negligence the Bank had to pay Rs.707,56,39,000/- to National Housing Bank and Rs.105,10,75,000/- to SBI Capital Market Ltd. These amounts are doubtful of recovery and the Bank may have to ultimately incur the loss.

He, therefore, displayed gross negligence throwing the safety of Bank's interest and its funds to the winds and also made recommendations to the DGM in order that Shri Harshad S. Mehta derived undue benefit at the cost of the Bank.

One or more of the charges listed in items 1 to 3 above or a part of one or more of the aforesaid charges would amply demonstrate that he failed to act with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank official. He also failed to protect the Bank's interest, thereby infringing Rule no.50(4) of SBI Officers Service Rules."

2. The petitioner submitted a detailed written

statement of defence to the charge-sheet on 16 th February, 1994.

He denied the charges levelled against him. During the course of

inquiry, the Presenting Officer introduced five prosecution

documents which were marked and taken on record as Exh.S1

to Exh.S5. The petitioner introduced twenty five defence

documents which were marked and taken on record as Exh.D-1

WP 1883-2003.doc

to D-25. The Presenting Officer did not examine any prosecution

witness. The petitioner examined one defence witness whose

evidence is recorded as DW-1. The petitioner was generally

examined as he was not examined as a witness. The Presenting

Officer submitted his written submission on 21 st December, 1994

and that of the petitioner was submitted on 19th January, 1995.

3. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and held

that the charges levelled in the Articles of Charge are proved.

The Disciplinary Authority upon considering the material on

record and the inquiry report recommended that the petitioner

failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest

of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost devotion and

diligence, thereby infringing Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of

India Officers Service Rules. The Appointing Authority therefore

imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement in terms of Rule

67(h) on the petitioner.

4. The petitioner filed an Appeal against the order

WP 1883-2003.doc

passed by the Appointing Authority. The Appellate Committee by

the order dated 10th April, 2001 for reasons recorded rejected

the Appeal. The petitioner filed a Review Petition dated 30th July,

2001 before the Reviewing Committee. The Reviewing

Committee by an order dated 5th July, 2002 for the reasons

recorded rejected the Review Petition. Learned Counsel for the

petitioner assailed the impugned orders. In his submission the

petitioner was In-charge of the Personal Banking Division.

According to him, all the transactions pertained to the Securities

Division of the Mumbai Main Branch. In his submission the

charge against the petitioner is based on the vouchers and bare

perusal of the vouchers would reveal that the same originated

from the 'SDI' Section of the Securities Division. The petitioner

has no connection with the Securities Division nor with the Bank

Investment Cell and other Sections of Securities Division and

thus the question of the petitioner being liable to verify or

scrutinize the said vouchers does not arise. In the submission of

the learned Counsel the charge-sheet itself has been framed on

an incorrect premise. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further

WP 1883-2003.doc

contends that the debit vouchers originated by Mr. R. Sitaraman

of the Securities Division was not passed by Mr. R. Sitaraman as

the account of Shri H.S. Mehta was maintained in Personal

Banking Division and he has no access to the ledger. It is the

submission that the said vouchers were passed by Mr. Vijapurkar

an Accountant in Personal Banking Division who had initialed

the debit vouchers as well as in the ledger and the said

Vijapurkar enjoyed full powers to pass the said debit vouchers

and he was not required to refer individual debit vouchers to the

petitioner in respect of accounts having adequate balance. In the

submission of the learned Counsel the charge against the

petitioner that he failed in his duty to detect excessive use of

powers by the said R. Sitaraman is baseless.

5. Learned Counsel further submitted that the customer

Shri H.S.Mehta has sought a facility by a letter dated 10 th

January, 1992 for single point clearance involving issue of

bankers cheques by debit to his Current account and crediting

bankers cheques to his account by Securities Division instead of

WP 1883-2003.doc

Personal Banking Division. It is pointed out that as the facility

was running satisfactorily and the dealings of Mr. H.S. Mehta

were good, the petitioner recommended the same to Deputy

General Manager, Mumbai Main Branch his higher authority

who did not approve it in writing and thus the said facility was

not granted. The petitioner had in fact recommended to the

Deputy General Manager that the customer was having large

float funds in his account. Learned Counsel therefore contends

that as Harshad Mehta was then prime broker and prominent

client, recommendation was made by the petitioner in his

favour. In the submission of the petitioner, therefore, the

petitioner has exercised all due diligence in the exercise of his

duty.

6. It is further contended that there were large number

of vouchers which the petitioner had to scrutinize on every given

date approximately 3000 to 4000 in numbers. The petitioner

had to pass them in normal course unless some serious

irregularities were noticed. The petitioner did not take any

WP 1883-2003.doc

voucher posted in the accounts of customers during random

scrutiny of such vouchers while dealing with correspondence of

the customers.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore,

contends that the transactions in question had initiated from the

Securities Division of the respondent-bank and the petitioner

was employed with the Personal Banking Division and not with

the Securities Division of the bank. In his submission there was

no negligence or violation of his duties on his part. Learned

Counsel also brought to our notice the Annual Report of 2002-

03 pointing out the entire amount of Rs.812 crores was later

recovered and no loss was caused to the bank.

8. Learned Counsel would further contend that as the

petitioner is acquitted in criminal proceedings he would stand

absolved of his liability in departmental proceedings.

9. Learned Counsel for the respondent-bank on the

WP 1883-2003.doc

other hand supported the order passed by the Appointing

Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority. In his

submission, the Inquiry Officer has recorded the findings of fact

while holding that the charges are proved. The petitioner was

given ample opportunity to defend himself in the course of the

inquiry. The inquiry has been conducted in due observance of

the principles of natural justice. In the submission of the learned

Counsel for the respondent there is adequate material and

evidence on record on the basis of which the charges against the

petitioner are held to be proved. Learned Counsel for the

respondent invited our attention to the Inquiry Officer's report

and the analysis of the evidence to contend that if the Inquiry

Officer's findings are based on some evidence which reasonably

supports the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the

charge, it is not the function of High Court to review the

evidence and to arrive at an independent finding. In his

submission even the Appellate Authority and Reviewing

Authority have confirmed the order passed by the Appointing

Authority and therefore also as there are concurrent

WP 1883-2003.doc

findings recorded by fact finding authorities, no interference is

warranted.

10. Having considered the submissions advanced by the

learned Advocates for the respective parties, we are not inclined

to interfere with the impugned orders. The Inquiry Officer has

found that there was no scrutiny of said transactions/vouchers

emanating from the Bank Investment Cell (BIC) to be put

through the personal account of Shri Harshad S. Mehta

maintained in the Personal Banking Division of which the

petitioner was In-charge. The vouchers were all for the amount

exceeding Rs.25,000/- had been passed by Shri R. Sitaraman,

JMGS-I beyond his powers. The Inquiry Officer has recorded a

finding that the indiscriminate manner in which the transactions

have been permitted in the personal account at PBD indicates

that the petitioner has abdicated the responsibility of monitoring

the transactions put through in the current account of Shri

Harshad S. Mehta thereby facilitating the perpetuation of a

massive fraud.

WP 1883-2003.doc

11. The Inquiry Officer has also taken into consideration

the evidence in the form of vouchers on record while returning

the finding that charges are proved. The document at Exh.S-3 is

a credit voucher for Rs.40,76,39,000/- while other three are

debit vouchers representing debits to the account of Shri

Harshad Mehta maintained at PBD. The Inquiry Officer has

found that all the vouchers have emanated from the BIC in the

Securities Division and they have been passed by Shri R.

Sitaraman, JMGS-I. The Inquiry Officer found that the narration

on the vouchers is very sketchy. In his view an ordinary glance at

the vouchers would raise doubts in the mind of the Manager as

to why should a voucher raising debit to a customer's account in

the PBD emanate from the Securities Division and that too from

the BIC which deals exclusively with the bank's own investment

operations. It is further observed that when a debit is raised to a

personal account of a customer, it is always backed by some

authority and such authority is invariably quoted in the voucher

itself. Thus, in the opinion of the Inquiry Officer suspicion

WP 1883-2003.doc

should have aroused in the mind of the Manager as to how the

vouchers for these large amounts have been passed by an officer

in JMGS-I who had no authority to pass such vouchers.

12. Before the Inquiry Officer the petitioner submitted

that Shri Harshad Mehta was a leading broker/dealer in

securities, his account used to be debited for the cost of

securities sold to him by the bank as it involved recovery of

legitimate dues payable to the bank and therefore, it was not

possible for him as a Manager of Personal Banking Division to

know that the debits/credits in the account of Shri Harshad

Mehta represented purchase/sale of securities done in BIC. This

plea was not accepted by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer

has recorded a finding that the petitioner has permitted routing

of the transactions done in BIC through the current account of

Shri Harshad Mehta in PBD without any justification

whatsoever. He further found that when the transactions were

routed through the PBD, it was the prime responsibility of the

PBD Manager to scrutinise/clear the vouchers before

WP 1883-2003.doc

debits/credits were allowed to be made in the current account of

Shri Harshad Mehta. The Inquiry Officer noticed that the

personal account of Shri Harshad Mehta was allowed to be

debited without any authority. The plea of the petitioner that

Mumbai Main Branch consisted of three divisions and eleven

sections which were working independent of each other and

therefore it was not possible for the PBD to know the persons

and the power structure in each division, was duly considered by

the Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer found that in the PBD

Division the accountant has full passing powers and he has

passed all the vouchers in the ledger (Exh.D-7). It is observed

that inter-divisional transactions were done through the

divisional heads, the PBD Manager should have ensured that

they were reflected in the relevant account only and not in the

personal account of the broker. The Inquiry Officer based on the

materials on record has recorded a finding that the petitioner

was himself to be faulted for allowing Shri Sitaraman, JMGS-I to

route the transactions through the personal account of Shri

Harshad Mehta in PBD without any question and without even

WP 1883-2003.doc

bringing this fact to the notice of Manager/Deputy Manager of

the Securities Division who failed to supervise and control the

working in BIC. In our opinion, we do not find any perversity in

the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer holding the first

charges as proved.

13. The Inquiry Officer's findings while considering the

second charge can be summed up as under :-

That it was incumbent on the part of the PBD

Manager to know what exactly was the nature of the

transactions passing through his division. Shri Harshad Mehta's

account was being monitored at highest level and it was thus

expected that the head of the PBD Division would personally

monitor the transactions routed through the account of this

particular broker. The letter dated 10/1/1992 written by Shri

Pankaj Shah on behalf of Shri Harshad Mehta was addressed to

the PBD Manager where a request was made for availing facility

of issuance of banker's cheques against bankers cheques of some

other banks brought by him. This itself was an unusual request

WP 1883-2003.doc

which should have aroused suspicion in the mind of the PBD

Manager (petitioner) who should have taken immediate action

to personally look into the individual transactions in the account

of the broker. The petitioner treated the matter casually as can

be seen from his remarks on this letter recommending this

facility to the broker. The plea of the petitioner that he had

delegated the work of scrutiny of current account vouchers to

his Deputy Manager was not accepted by the Inquiry Officer on

the ground that as head of a very important division of the

bank's business and being well aware that this account was

being monitored at top most level, it amounted to total

abdication of responsibility on his part in not giving personal

attention to the scrutiny of the vouchers put through the account

of the broker. It is held that primarily the responsibility for

scrutiny of the vouchers lies with the Manager and had the

petitioner been cautious and vigilant, the fraudulent nature of

the transactions would have come to light well within time. The

petitioner's contention is that a new account is monitored for

large value credits for six months only. In this case however

WP 1883-2003.doc

regular report was sent to the DGM every month. Although the

petitioner himself has agreed that in this particular case monthly

reporting was being done but it did not occur to him to

scrutinise the vouchers though large sums were being credited

and debited to the account on daily basis without proper

authorisation. We do not find any perversity in the findings

recorded.

14. In so far as the third charge is concerned the Inquiry

Officer has found that there was substantial increase in the

amounts deposited in the account of the broker from Rs.43

crores from August, 1990 to March 1991 to Rs.2989 crores from

April, 1991 to March, 1992, while the float funds had remained

in the range of a few lacs/thousands only. The Inquiry Officer

duly considered the letter written by Shri Pankaj Shah on behalf

of Shri Harshad Mehta containing a recommendation made by

the petitioner to grant the facility. The contention of the

petitioner that the facility was recommended to Shri Harshad

Mehta as he was the biggest depositor in the PBD and the

WP 1883-2003.doc

facilities were sought by him so as to avail the facility of

withdrawal from their account on the date of the clearing, was

not accepted by the Inquiry Officer. On this basis it is inferred

that the facilities were recommended by the petitioner without

looking into the genuineness of the request of the party and the

purpose thereof though the request made was quite unusual and

the specific details of the transactions were not disclosed by the

broker. It is further found that the petitioner misled the DGM by

furnishing selective information on deposits thereby projecting

as if by a small increase in deposits, the grave risks to which

bank shall be exposed will be covered. The Inquiry Officer

observed that had the petitioner examined the request of the

broker properly after making necessary inquiries, he would have

found out that the broker was already availing of this facility in

BIC unauthorisedly. It is found that because of the negligence on

the part of the petitioner in this regard, the bank had to pay a

sum of Rs.707,56,39,000/- to National Housing Bank and

Rs.105,10,75,000/- to SBI Capital Markets Ltd. and that it

would be ultimately difficult to recover these amounts. The

WP 1883-2003.doc

Inquiry Officer thus found that had the petitioner been vigilant,

he could have alerted the DGM, Securities Division as well as

SBICAP and the fraud on the bank could have been prevented.

The money has been released to the broker against these

transactions through his current account which was maintained

in PBD only. It is in this view of the matter the Inquiry Officer

held that the petitioner failed to act with utmost integrity,

honesty, devotion and diligence. It was proved that the

petitioner acted in the manner unbecoming of a bank officer and

that he failed to protect the interest of the bank and the bank

has been put to the risk of huge loss of nearly Rs.812 crores.

15. We do not find any merit in the contention of the

learned Counsel that merely because the amount of Rs.812

crores was later recovered and no loss was caused to the bank

would absolve the petitioner of the charges levelled against him.

This defence is not available to the petitioner. In this context we

may usefully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case

of Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce [(2006)

WP 1883-2003.doc

10 SCC 572). In para 13 & 14 has observed thus :-

"13. In Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik: (1996) 9 SCC 69, this Court held that a bank officer's acting beyond his authority constituted misconduct and no further proof of loss is necessary.

In the case of Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC. vs. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, this Court held in paragraph 10 at scc p.614 as under:

If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding order of dismissal".

14. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank vs. P.C.Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, this Court said in paragraph 14 at scc p.376 as under:

"A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to project 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.

WP 1883-2003.doc

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. It is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization 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. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court".

16. On the basis of the Inquiry Officer's report, the

Appointing Authority dismissed the petitioner from the service

by an order dated 8th March, 2000. The criminal proceedings

initiated against the petitioner resulted in his acquittal by the

judgment and order passed by the Special Court on 12 th April,

2006. We also do not find any merit in the submission made by

the learned Counsel that as the petitioner is acquitted in the

criminal case he may be exonerated of the charges in the

department proceedings. It is well settled that the proceedings

in criminal case and departmental proceedings operate in

WP 1883-2003.doc

different fields. The standards of proof and evidence required in

the two proceedings are also different. The disciplinary

proceedings are concerned with ensuring that the employees

conform to the rules of conduct which are prescribed by the

employer and maintain discipline in relation to their

employment. The disciplinary proceedings are to weed out

persons who are considered unworthy of being a part of the

employer organization. The criminal proceedings are with an

object to punish the offender. The law is well settled. Acquittal

by a criminal Court would not debar an employer from

exercising disciplinary power in accordance with the Rules and

Regulations in force. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement

made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain

officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of

evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental

proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a

conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to

record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to

appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not

WP 1883-2003.doc

similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution

and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a

Court of law. In departmental inquiry, on the other hand, penalty

can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded

on the basis of "preponderance of probability". Acquittal of the

petitioner in the criminal case by the Special Court, therefore,

does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the

disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bank. We are, therefore, unable to

uphold the contention of the petitioner that since he was

acquitted by a criminal Court, the impugned order dismissing

him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside.

17. We therefore find that the charges against the

petitioner were not casual in nature but were serious. The

Disciplinary Authority has taken all these aspects into

consideration and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based

on the evidence on record. We do not find any perversity in the

findings so recorded. The inquiry has been conducted in due

WP 1883-2003.doc

observance of the principles of natural justice. Even the

Appellate Authority has dealt with the Appeals on merits and

concurred with the view of the Disciplinary Authority. In these

circumstances, therefore, we do not find any infirmity or

perversity with the view taken by the Authorities. We find no

merit in the Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with

no order as to costs.

18. Rule is discharged.

 (M.S.KARNIK, J.)                                            (A.A.SAYED, J.)