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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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]
[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
[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
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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
[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;
[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."
[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
[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
[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
[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.
[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
[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,
[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
[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/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
