[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Lh Of Decd N G Kotecha vs Central Bank Of India on 30 March, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 09/02/2026
Pronounced On : 30/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 186 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/10824/2004
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 186 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
LH OF DECD N G KOTECHA & ORS.
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHASKAR TANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR TANNA
ASSOCIATES(1410) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
MS MOHINI BHAVSAR FOR MR BHARAT JANI(352) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
1.Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhaskar
Tanna for the appellant and learned advocate
Ms. Mohini Bhavsar for learned advocate Mr.
Bharat Jani for the respondent.
2.This appeal is preferred by the appellant-
original petitioners challenging the judgment
and order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Special
Civil Application No.10824 of 2004 whereby
the petition is dismissed.
3.Brief facts of the case are that the
appellant - original petitioner joined as a
Clerk with the respondent bank on 01.07.1952
and lastly, he was promoted as the General
Manager.
4.The petitioner was working as Chief Internal
Auditor at Ahmedabad in the year 1993 when he
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
received a memo dated 14.07.1993 calling upon
him to submit reply to the alleged procedural
lapses committed by him between 19.07.1986 to
19.02.1990 while he was working as Chief
Manager, Jamnagar main office.
5.Thereafter the petitioner was served with a
charge-sheet dated 12.08.1993 just two months
prior to his retirement alleging misconduct
due to procedural lapses committed by him.
According to the petitioner, there were no
allegations about any misappropriation or any
financial loss caused to the respondent bank.
6.The petitioner submitted his reply on
23.08.1993. Thereafter two separate
corrigendum were issued making minor
corrections in the charge-sheet.
7.The defense representative filed written
brief on 01.10.1993 on behalf of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
petitioner.
8.The inquiry officer by report dated
21.10.1993 held that the petitioner was
guilty of all the charges levelled against
him and on the basis of such inquiry report,
an order was issued by the respondent bank
stating that though the petitioner was
retiring on 31.10.1993, he would be continued
in service till the departmental proceedings
are concluded.
9. The petitioner submitted his reply on
28.10.1993. Thereafter the disciplinary
authority by order dated 06.05.1994 imposed
the punishment of dismissal upon the
petitioner.
10. The petitioner preferred an appeal
against the order of disciplinary authority
and by order dated 19.01.1995, the appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
authority confirmed the order of dismissal.
11. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred a writ petition being Special Civil
Application No.10096/1995 against the order
of the appellate authority.
12. The said writ petition was disposed of
by order dated 30.04.2003 and the petitioner
was permitted to withdraw the petition in
order to make a representation to the
appropriate authority.
13. The petitioner preferred representation
dated 12.05.2003 which was rejected by the
Chairman and the Managing Director of the
Bank vide order dated 24.07.2003.
14. The petitioner therefore preferred
Special Civil Application No.10824/2004
before this Court which was admitted by order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
dated 03.09.2024.
15. During the pendency of the petition, the
petitioner expired and therefore, his legal
heirs are brought on record.
16. The writ petition was also dismissed by
the impugned judgment and order dated
03.10.2024. The appellants who are the legal
heirs of the original petitioner, therefore,
have preferred this appeal challenging the
impugned order dated 03.10.2024.
17. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhaskar
Tanna for the appellants submitted that the
penalty of dismissal from service imposed
upon the original petitioner is grossly
disproportionate considering the allegations
levelled and allegedly proved during the
inquiry proceedings.
18. It was submitted that allegations
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
levelled in the charge-sheet against the
original petitioner are all of procedural
nature and there is no allegation against the
petitioner that due to such procedural
lapses, the respondent bank suffered any
monetary loss, or the original petitioner had
gained any undue advantage at any point of
time from the concerned party.
19. It was therefore, submitted that when
the charges levelled against the original
petitioner refer to procedural aspects only,
without any adverse impact on the respondent
bank, then in such circumstances, punishment
of dismissal from service imposed upon the
original petitioner is grossly
disproportionate, stigmatic and not
commensurating with the charges levelled
against the original petitioner.
20. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tanna
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
submitted that before issuance of the charge-
sheet even the Central Office had stated that
the inquiry against the original petitioner
was non vigilance matter meaning thereby that
the charges may not be extremely serious and
such aspect has not been considered by the
authority while deciding the charges and
imposing major penalty of dismissal.
21. It was submitted that the appeal is
restricted only with regard to
disproportionate penalty of dismissal from
service imposed upon the original petitioner
considering the charges levelled against him
and the appellants are not inclined to
receive any monetary benefits from the
respondent bank.
22. It was submitted that the original
petitioner has served for 41 years with the
respondent bank and not a single memo was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
issued to him much-less charge-sheet or any
adverse order during his entire career.
23. It was further submitted that the
original petitioner had received various
recommendation letters and prizes for
exemplary service rendered by him to the
respondent bank and in such circumstances,
the respondent authorities ought to have
considered the fact that the original
petitioner could not have been thrown out
from the service of the bank on the date of
his regular superannuation without any
terminal benefits on the ground of having
committed procedural lapses which did not
result in any monetary loss to the respondent
bank.
24. It was therefore, submitted that the
learned Single Judge while dismissing the
petition has been swayed away by the charges
as well as withdrawal of earlier writ
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
petition so as to make the representation to
the Chairman and Managing Director of the
respondent bank regarding disproportionate
penalty which does not commensurate with the
charges levelled against the original
petitioner which are procedural in nature.
25. It was submitted that the learned Single
Judge while considering the matter on merits
has heavily relied upon documents ME 1/6 and
1/7 which are confession letter of the party
and inspection report of the Chief Officer
respectively wherein irregularity with regard
to inflated stocks have been reflected.
26. It was pointed out by learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Tanna that none of the charges
out of the six charges which are proved
against the original petitioner has resulted
into any monetary loss to the respondent
bank.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
27. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tanna
invited the attention of the Court to the
findings of the Chairman and Managing
Director while deciding the representation
wherein it is observed that the financial
impact of the proven acts of misconduct on
part of the original petitioner had been the
factor which did not persuade the Chairman as
the head of the public sector bank to show
any sympathy in the case.
28. It was submitted that findings of the
Chairman and Managing Director of the
respondent bank while rejecting the
representation by order dated 24.07.2003 is
contrary to the facts and evidence on record
as there is no financial aspect of the proven
act of misconduct on part of the original
petitioner which is proved during the course
of disciplinary inquiry. It was therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
submitted that the findings arrived at by the
learned Single Judge are required to be
considered from the reasoning given by the
Managing Director in its communication dated
24.07.2003 only.
29. It was therefore, submitted that the
appellants are not against the six charges
which are levelled against the petitioner are
proved but the appellants have filed this
appeal only to challenge the disproportionate
punishment to the original petitioner
regarding the charges levelled against him.
30. It was submitted that earlier writ
petition was withdrawn only with a view to
persuade the respondent bank to reconsider
the imposition of major penalty of dismissal
by substituting it with other suitable
penalty considering that the charges levelled
against the original petitioner are of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
procedural nature.
31. It was therefore, submitted that learned
Single Judge while dismissing the petition
has ignored this fact of disproportionate
penalty for each of the charges. It was
submitted that the disciplinary authority has
imposed different punishment for different
charges.
32. It was pointed out that for Charge no.1,
punishment of dismissal from service was
imposed, however the said charge was relating
to inflation of stock and failure to carry
out/manage for the inspection of goods
hypothecated to the bank and thereby promoted
the party to avail finance against inflated
stocks. However, there is no financial
implication of that charge as held by the
inquiry officer.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
33. It was pointed out from the order passed
by the disciplinary authority that advancing
of finance against the inflated stock has not
caused any financial loss to the respondent
bank and for such alleged misconduct, the
major penalty of dismissal from service ought
not to have been awarded.
34. It was further submitted that with
regard to charge no.2, reduction of basic pay
by four stages in time scale was levied as
the charge levied against the original
petitioner was failure to verify/arrange for
verification of correct value of the stocks
disclosed by the party in the stock
statement.
35. It was submitted that with regard to
charge no.3 pertaining to keep proper control
over the accounts of the party, the penalty
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
of dismissal from service is imposed though
there is no financial impact of any of the
alleged procedural irregularity committed by
the original petitioner by not keeping proper
control over the accounts of the party as
there were transfers from EPC account to CC
Account for which the bank has not suffered
any financial loss.
36. It was submitted that as regard charge
no.4, penalty imposed is reduction of basic
pay by six increments as the charge related
to not ensuring to get adjusted/reduced
overdue outstanding balance of EPC account
from the proceeds of the duty draw back and
cash incentives.
37. With regard to charge no.5, it was
submitted that for the alleged failure on
part of the original petitioner to exercise
proper control over the account and as a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
result the party could divert huge funds from
EPC Account through CC Account in favour of
their parent company account/allied concerns/
concerns of same group/family members etc. is
concerned, the penalty imposed is dismissal
from service though there is no financial
impact.
38. With regard to charge no.6, it was
submitted that again the charge is regarding
failure to exercise control over the EPC
account of the party and made advance against
future contract without bothering to first
liquidate the existing outstanding in the
account. It was submitted that the penalty
imposed for charge no.6 is dismissal from
service though there is no financial impact
and considering the fact that all charges
were proved against the original petitioner,
dismissal from service under Regulation 4 of
the Central bank of India Officer Employees
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1976 (For
short "the Regulations") was imposed though
the original petitioner has retired from
service on 31.10.1993 but was continued in
service due to pendency of the inquiry
proceedings.
39. It was submitted by learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Tanna that the learned Single
Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.B.
Majmudar, As His Lordship was then) by order
dated 30.04.20o3 permitted the petitioner to
withdraw the petition with a liberty to
approach the appropriate authority in the
matter and the appropriate authority was
directed to consider the application that may
be submitted by the petitioner and may be
dealt with sympathetically and to take a
decision in accordance with law within four
weeks.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
40. It was submitted the Chairman and
Managing Director of the respondent bank has
rejected the representation of the petitioner
only on the ground that the financial impact
of the proven acts of misconduct on part of
the original petitioner which does not exist
either at show cause notice or in charge-
sheet or in inquiry report or in the order of
disciplinary authority. It was therefore
submitted that learned Single Judge has
committed a grave error in confirming the
order passed by the Chairman and Managing
Director of the respondent bank rejecting the
representation of the petitioner without any
basis and is contrary to the findings of the
inquiry officer and disciplinary authority
where none of the charges proved against the
petitioner suffers from any financial impact
of proven misconduct on the part of the
original petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
41. It was further submitted that under the
instructions, the appellant will not claim
any monetary benefit if the penalty of
dismissal imposed upon the original
petitioner is altered to commensurate the
charges levelled against him which are proved
during the inquiry proceedings.
42. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms.
Mohini Bhavsar for the respondent bank
submitted that this is the third round of
litigation as initially the appellant filed
Special Civil Application No.10096/1995 which
came to be withdrawn with a view to make a
representation before the bank for taking a
sympathetic view. Thereafter, the said
representation was rejected and thus the
appellant filed Special Civil Application
No.10824/2024, which also came to be rejected
by oral judgment dated 12.08.2016 by this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
Court.
43. Thereafter the appellant filed Misc.
Civil Application No.3056/2016 for Review of
the aforesaid oral judgement which came to be
rejected by order dated 07.07.2017. The
appellant thereafter filed two Letters Patent
Appeal No.2164/2017 and No.2165/2017
challenging the oral judgment passed on
12.08.2016 as well as order dated 07.07.2017
passed in review application. Both the said
Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of by way
of common oral order dated 20.02.2019 whereby
the LPA No.2164/2017 is allowed and the
Review Application being MCA No.3056/2017 is
remanded back to the learned Single Judge to
decide afresh.
44. Thereafter this Court by order dated
19.01.2023 allowed the Misc. Civil
Application No.3056/2017 and restored Special
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
Civil Application No.10824/2004 to its
original file. Accordingly, the present
appeal is filed against the judgment passed
in the Special Civil Application No.
10824/2004.
45. Learned advocate for the respondent
relied upon the observation made by this
Court in judgment dated 12.08.2016 passed in
Special Civil Application No.10824 of 2004
wherein it is observed as under:
"...there is limited scope of judicial
review of the discretion exercised
by the employer to impose a
particular penalty on the delinquent
employee. The Supreme court
repeatedly emphasized that the High
Courts, in exercise of its powers
under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, should not exercise appellate
jurisdiction in such matters and
substitute its opinion by the one
formed by the disciplinary
authority. It has also been held
that the punishment imposed by the
competent authority should not be
modified/substituted with a lesser
penalty unless the court is
satisfied that the same is grossly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
or shockingly disappropriate or is
so unreasonable that no person of a
reasonable prudence would have
imposed such punishment in the facts
and circumstances of the case."
46. Learned advocate for the respondent
submitted that all the six charges leveled
against the appellant were proved in the
departmental inquiry after perusing the
evidences from management side and defense
side.
47. With regard to charge No.3, in the
report of inquiry officer, learned advocate
for the respondent submitted that it is
mentioned that party has written letter on
27.01.1990 that cash payment of considerable
large amount was made to M/s.Walker Anjariya
and sons Pvt. Ltd. (parent company). Further
by letter dated 24.04.1990, party had
admitted that they had diverted over Rs.50/-
Lacs to M/s.Walker Anjariya and sons Pvt.
Ltd.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
48. Learned advocate for the respondent
submitted that with regard to charge No.4,
the inquiry officer perused the letter
written by Zonal office, Ahmedabad dated
26.01.1989, which states that cash credit and
EPC account of the party were out of order
since long. Further the letter of party dated
27.02.1990 was also perused in which party
has stated that all the payments received by
them towards cash assistance and duty draw
back had been deposited in CC account of the
party and they had not been instructed by the
branch to deposit the same in EPC account.
49. Learned advocate for the respondent
submitted that with regard to charge No.5,
the inquiry officer perused the letter dated
27.01.1990 submitted by M/s. P.M.P. Ltd. to
Zonal office, Ahmedabad that they had
diverted the funds from their CC account and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
that the said funds were utilized for the
purpose other than for which EPC advance was
granted to M/s. P.M.P. Ltd. Further vide
letter dated 24.04.1990, the party in clear
terms admitted that they have diverted
Rs.50/- lacs to their parent company account
i.e. M/s.Walker Anjariya and sons Pvt. Ltd.
50. Learned advocate for the respondent
submitted that with regard to charge No.6,
the inquiry officer perused the letter dated
28.01.1989 written by Zonal office to the
branch that the CC account and EPC account of
the party were out of order since long. He
also perused the letter of Zonal office to
CO, Bombay dated 17.08.1989 that overall
performance of the party was not satisfactory
and letter dated 31.08.1990 that an amount of
Rs.5,50,760/- was overdue in EPC account of
the party as on 07.09.1990.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
51. Learned advocate for the respondent
submitted that after considering the report
of inquiry officer as well as defense of the
appellant, the disciplinary authority imposed
penalty of dismissal from service by order
dated 06.05.1994, which was confirmed by the
appellate authority.
52. Learned advocate for the respondent
submitted that with respect to the issue of
financial impact on the bank due to
misconduct on the part of appellant, it is
stated that a Chief Manager who commits
irregularities in maintaining the accounts
and if found guilty is subjected to face the
disciplinary action. All Bank officers are
expected to act with high standards of
honesty, integrity and diligence. Further the
Chief Officer has to ensure the internal
control to prevent the diversion of funds. In
the present case, the appellant failed to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
perform his duties with diligence and
therefore the party could attempt to divert
the funds and use the funds for other purpose
then it was sanctioned. Therefore, violation
of bank norms constitutes serious misconduct
regardless the fact that whether bank
sustained pecuniary loss. However, in the
present case, the amount remained outstanding
in the party's account and suit was filed for
recovery.
53. Learned advocate for the respondent, in
support of his submissions, placed reliance
upon the following judgments: -
1) N.G. Kotecha v. Central Bank of India and
others (judgment dated 12.08.2016 passed in
Special Civil Application No.10824 of 2004).
2) B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and
others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
3) Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and others
reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583
4) State Bank of India Vs. Bela Bagchi
reported in 2005 (0) AIJEL SC 35499
5) Deputy General Manager (Appellate
Authority) Vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava reported
in 2021 (0) AIJEL SC 66911.
6) Regional Manager, Uco Bank Vs. Krishna
Kumar Bhardwaj reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL SC
68398.
7) Union of India Vs. M. Duraisamy reported
in 2022 (0) ALJEL SC 68662
54. It was therefore submitted that this
Court may be pleased to dismiss the present
Letters Patent Appeal by confirming the
impugned judgement and order passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
learned Single judge.
55. Having heard the learned advocates for
the respective parties and considering the
facts of the case it is not in dispute that
the charges levelled against the original
petitioner are proved during the inquiry
proceedings and are confirmed by the
disciplinary authority as well as the
appellate authority.
56. It also emerges from the record that the
original petitioner had challenged the order
of dismissal confirmed by the appellate
authority before this Court by preferring
Special Civil Application No.10096/1995 which
was permitted to be withdrawn on 30.04.2003
by learned Single Judge by making the
following observations:
"The petitioner is accordingly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
permitted to withdraw this petition,
appropriate authority shall consider
the application that may be
submitted with a liberty to approach
the appropriate authority in the
matter. The by the petitioner and
such application may be dealt with
sympathetically and the authority
may take the decision in accordance
with law within four weeks from the
date of receipt of such application.
In view of the aforesaid direction,
Mr. Tanna for the petitioner wants
to withdraw this petition, reserving
his right to challenge such order if
passed against the petitioner on his
representation. Petition is
accordingly disposed of as
withdrawn.
It is clarified that in case such
final decision on such
representation is against the
petitioner, it would be open for him
to challenge the same in accordance
with law."
57. The original petitioner thereafter
preferred representation before Chairman and
Managing Director which was disposed of by
the impugned order/communication dated
24.07.2003 passed by the Chairman and
Managing Director by making following
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
observations:
"After going through the facts of
the case as above, particularly the
financial impact of the proven acts
of misconduct on the part of Shri
Kotecha on the Organisation, I have
not been able to persuade myself as
the head of a Public Sector Bank to
show any sympathy in the case and
alter the penalty that was awarded
and confirmed by the independent
authorities viz Disciplinary
Authority/Deputy General Manager and
the Appellate Authority/General
Manager respectively at different
points of time.
Hence, the request of Shri Kotecha
to alter the penalty awarded to him
stands rejected."
58. It is astonishing that the Chairman and
Managing Director has rejected the
representation in one line by observing that
"...particulary, the financial impact of the
proven acts of misconduct on the part of Shri
Kotecha on the Organisation, I have not been
able to persuade myself as the head of a
Public Sector Bank to show any sympathy in
the case..." Except the above observations,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
there is no reason assigned as to why the
representation of the original petitioner was
not considered. If we peruse the entire
order/communication dated 24.07.2003, six
paragraphs are referring to the fact of the
proceedings against the original petitioner
and only observation is made as reproduced
here in above.
59. Thus, the Chairman and Managing Director
has cursorily rejected the representation
made by the original petitioner as the
original petitioner was never interested in
challenging the findings of the inquiry
officer or the appellate authority, otherwise
the writ petition would not have been
withdrawn so as to make a representation.
60. This clearly shows the conduct on part
of the respondent Chairman and Managing
Director of the respondent bank who has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
flagrantly violated and misinterpreted the
direction issued by this Court to consider
the representation of the original petitioner
sympathetically and in accordance with law.
61. On perusal of the documents made
available on record as well as the detailed
recording of the evidence by the learned
Single Judge, it appears that the Chairman
and Managing Director of the respondent bank
has without application of mind, concluded
that there is proven financial impact due to
misconduct on part of the original petitioner
upon the respondent bank whereas there is
nothing on record to show that the respondent
bank at any point of time has suffered
financial loss due to the proven misconduct
on part of the original petitioner.
62. The contention raised on behalf of the
respondent bank also does not refer to any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
financial loss or impact on the respondent
bank and therefore, the Chairman and Managing
Director ought to have considered the
disproportionate penalty of dismissal from
service sympathetically as directed by this
Court while permitting the petitioner to
withdraw Special Civil Application No.10096
of 1995.
63. Regulation 4 of the Regulations provide
for penalties, both minor and major
penalties. The major penalties prescribed are
as under:
"Major Penalties:...........
f) Save as Provided for in (e) above
reduction to a lower stage in the
time scale of pay for a specified
period, with further directions as
to whether or not the officer will
earn increments of pay during the
period of such reduction and whether
on the expiry of such period the
reduction will or will not have the
effect of postponing the future
increments of his pay;
g) reduction to a lower grade or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
post;
h) Compulsory retirement;
i) Removal from service which shall
not be disqualification for future
employment,
j) Dismissal which shall ordinarily
be a disqualification for future
employment."
64. If we consider the major penalties which
may be imposed upon the petitioner, reduction
to a lower grade or post as per clause (g) is
also a major penalty, however during the
pendency of the proceedings, the original
petitioner retired on attaining the age of
superannuation.
65. Considering the charges levelled against
the petitioner which are proved during the
inquiry proceedings, the respondent bank
could have imposed penalty as per clause (f).
As the petitioner had already attained the
age of superannuation on 31.10.1993 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
therefore, imposition of compulsory
retirement as per clause (h) would not be
possible.
66. With regard to the penalty of dismissal
which shall ordinarily be a disqualification
for future employment as per clause (j) is
concerned, is an economic and social death of
the petitioner who has rendered 41 years of
unblemished service with the respondent
bank.
67. Therefore, considering the charges
levelled against the petitioner which are
proved during the inquiry proceedings and
confirmed during the appellate proceedings
are concerned and the fact that there is no
financial impact due to such misconduct which
are proved during the course of inquiry
proceedings, we are of the opinion that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
dismissal from service is disproportionate to
the charges levelled and the findings arrived
at by the inquiry officer.
68. Therefore, the penalty to be imposed
upon the petitioner can be substituted by
reduction to a lower grade or post as imposed
by the disciplinary authority for charge nos.
2 and 4 by reduction of basic pay by six
increments for four stages in time scale as
all charges are interrelated to each other
and therefore, the penalty imposed upon the
original petitioner of dismissal is hereby
quashed and set aside and it is substituted
by reduction of basic pay by six stages in
time scale.
69. The aforesaid substitution of punishment
would not result in any financial implication
as it is submitted by the learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Tanna on behalf of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
appellants that the appellants will not claim
any monetary benefit due to substitution of
the penalty and as the appellants are only
interested in removal of stigmatic penalty of
dismissal from service for the original
petitioner.
70. The respondent bank is therefore,
directed to pass appropriate consequential
order of substitution of the penalty as
directed here-in-above without any financial
liability upon the respondent bank as the
respondent bank shall not be liable to pay
any monetary benefit arising out of such
substitution of major penalty of clause (f)
instead of clause(j) of the Rule 4 of the
Rules because the appellants have forgone
their right to claim any monetary benefit
arising out of reduction of the substitution
of the penalty.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
71. Appeal is accordingly disposed of with
no order as to costs. Civil Application also
stands disposed of.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
RAGHUNATH R NAIR
