Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amit Kashyap vs Punjab National Bank on 18 February, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:53205]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4638/2022
Amit Kashyap S/o Shri Motilal Kashyap, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of 13, Dhimber Bhoiwada, Adarsh Chowk, Udaipur,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Through Its M.d. And C.e.o.,
Corporate And Head Office At Plot No.4, Sector - 10,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. The Circle Head Cum Disciplinary Authority, Punjab
National Bank, Circle Office, Human Resource
Development Department, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Manager (Branch Head), Punjab National Bank, BO Hiran
Magri Sec. 4, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit
Mr. Tushar Moad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas
Mr. Deepak Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order REPORTABLE Order pronounced on : 18/02/2025 Order reserved on : 21/09/2024
1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved of the order dated 17.02.2022 (Annex.9), whereby a punishment of "Be Dismissed without Notice" has been inflicted upon him pursuant to a departmental enquiry conducted against him. (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (2 of 22) [CW-4638/2022]
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in sub-ordinate cadre (Peon) in the Punjab National Bank, Circle Udaipur vide order dated 29.03.2016, whereafter he was made permanent on the post of Peon-cum-Daftary vide order dated 27.03.2017. The petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 05.12.2020 under the provisions of the para 14 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 and thereafter a show cause notice dated 24.12.2020 was served upon him alleging two irregularities, viz. (1) that he had made unauthorized cash loading in ATM without any office order and (2) that there are many high value/abnormal transactions in his account. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice justifying his act and explaining the transactions in the account. Being dissatisfied with the reply, the respondent authorities served a charge-sheet dated 10.06.2021 upon the petitioner under the provisions of para 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002, wherein two charges identical to the ones mentioned in the show cause notice were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet on 24.06.2021. The disciplinary authority after receipt of the reply decided to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and vide order dated 22.07.2021 appointed enquiry officer and enquiry was commenced against the petitioner. The enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner was guilty of both the charges and accordingly, submitted the enquiry report dated 20.01.2022. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and consequently, issued a show cause notice dated 29.01.2022 to the petitioner proposing a punishment of "Be Dismissed without Notice" as per para 6(a) of (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (3 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] the Bipartite Agreement. The petitioner was provided opportunity of personal hearing, in pursuance of which he appeared before the disciplinary authority on 07.02.2022 with his defence representative and also submitted his written representation praying for reconsideration on the point of punishment. The disciplinary authority vide the order impugned dated 17.02.2022 imposed the punishment of "dismissal from service without notice"
upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent bank suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner produced oral as well as documentary evidence before the enquiry officer justifying his act as well as the transactions in his account, but the enquiry officer did not take into consideration the same and concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the charges, thus, enquiry proceedings were just empty formality. Further the disciplinary authority simply accepted 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 dismissal from service.
4. Regarding the charge No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said charge is baseless and does not hold ground as the petitioner being an employee of subordinate class, i.e. Peon cum Daftary (Class IV) has acted only upon the (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (4 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] orders/directions of his superior officers in regard to operating of the ATM machine. The duty of operating ATM machine was though not assigned to the petitioner in writing but the senior officers present in the bank asked him to operate the ATM machine, which is reflected from the fact that for operating ATM machine, keys as well as password is required, which are each time supplied by the senior officers of the bank. Thus, there was no question of any unauthorized act of loading cash in ATM machine as he acted only as per the direction of the Branch Head and has performed duty as a helper alongwith the other officers for the purpose of loading the cash.
5. Regarding the charge No.2, it is submitted that the amounts deposited in the salary account of the petitioner were relating to income of his wife. There is cash credit account in the name of the petitioner's wife and the amounts were supposed to be deposited in the said account. However, merely depositing the said amount in the salary account of the petitioner does not in itself constitute any misconduct when the petitioner has furnished a plausible explanation in this regard. The petitioner has not participated in any commercial activity and thus, he has not violated any service rules. It was also the submission of the petitioner that some amount was taken by him as personal loan from his known persons for the purpose of construction of his house.
6. Addressing the court on the point of penalty, learned counsel submits that though it is discretion of the disciplinary authority in (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (5 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] 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. He submits that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner is absolutely arbitrary, illegal, untenable and unsustainable in the eye of law inasmuch as the same is in gross violation of the provisions of para 12(c) of the Bipartite Settlement which provides that while awarding punishment, the disciplinary authority shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record and any other aggravating or extenuating circumstances, that may exist. The petitioner being a Class IV employee was simply following the orders of the senior officers and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that his act of loading cash in the ATM machine could prejudice to the interests of the bank or was likely to involve the bank in serious loss. The act alleged in the charge No.2 can at best be classified as a minor negligence on part of the petitioner. Thus, the harsh penalty awarded to the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges and calls for interference of this court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in addition to being disproportionate to the gravity of the charges, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because on the same day on which the petitioner was charge-sheeted, another employee of the bank, namely, Mr. Keshav Lal Meena, who was Head Cashier in the same (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (6 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] bank, had also been charge-sheeted under the same provision, i.e. para 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 for the same transaction and parallel departmental enquiry was initiated against him, but he has been given lower punishment than the petitioner despite the charge against him being graver in nature and he being senior in rank than the petitioner, his responsibilities were also higher. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for acceptance of the writ petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that it is well-established legal position that in absence of gross irregularity in the prosecution of disciplinary proceedings or perversity or grave illegality in the process or in the order, the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction will not sit as a court of appeal over the disciplinary proceedings and will not ordinarily interfere with the findings of facts made by the authority concerned unless the vitiating factors are present. In the case at hand, the petitioner has not made out a case in his favour with regard to the infraction of the principles of natural justice or procedural irregularities while conducting enquiry, so as to attract any interference with the same.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that no office orders were issued by the Branch Head authorizing the petitioner to fill up the cash in the ATM machine and to operate the same. The petitioner acted beyond his authority by loading the cash in the ATM machine by using the password of another (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (7 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] employee without any office order and thus, acted prejudicial to the interests of the Bank. He further submits that an FIR bearing No.399/2020 was lodged by Mr. Vivek Meena, the then Brnach Manager of Branch Office Hiran Magri, Udaipur at the Police Station Hiran Magri, Udaipur regarding theft from the ATM machine by opening the same with the use of secret pin number as also the key. In the said FIR, after investigation, the police sought prosecution sanction and then filed a challan against the petitioner and one other person for the offences under Section 381, 454 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 66-C of the IT Act and the matter is pending trial. The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct, the record of the employee and other aggravating and extenuating circumstances and in conformity with para 12(c) of the Bipartite Settlement passed the impugned punishment order, which perfectly valid, justified and commensurate to the gravity of the charges. Regarding the claim of parity vis-a-vis another employee Mr. Keshav Lal Meena, learned counsel submits that since the charges levelled against the two employees are different, therefore, the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are not at all attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments :-
1. State of UP & Anr. Vs. Manmohan Nath Sinaha & Anr. [(2009) 8 SCC 310]
2. General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. R. Periasamy [(2015) 3 SCC 101] (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (8 of 22) [CW-4638/2022]
3. Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra [AIR 1999 SC 625]
4. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Hoti Lal [(2003) 3 SCC 605]
11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent bank and perused the material placed on record and the judgments cited at bar.
12. A perusal of the material placed on the record revealing that a show cause notice dated 24.12.2020 was issued to the petitioner alleging two irregularities. He replied to the notice, however, being dissatisfied with his explanation, the respondent bank issued him the charge-sheet dated 10.06.2021 under the provisions of para 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. The charge-sheet contained the following two charges :-
vkjksi 01% vkids }kjk ATM e'khu esa vukf/kd`r :i ls dS'k Hkjus dk dk;Z fcuk fdlh dk;kZy; vkns'k ds fd;k x;kA vkjksi 02% vkids cSad [kkrs la[;k&3566000110069274 esa vf/kd ewY;@vlekU; ysu&nsu (high value/ abnormal transactions) ik, x, gSA vkids }kjk fd;k x;k d`R; vuqfpr gS ,oa f}i{kh; le>kSrs ds fcanq Ø- 5(j) ds vuqlkj gS] tks bl izdkj gS& iSjk 5(j) Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss.
13. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet denying the allegations and justifying his act. The Disciplinary Authority after consideration of the reply proceeded to appoint an enquiry officer on 22.07.2021. During the course of enquiry, the (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (9 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing as per the rules, which he availed by exhibiting six documents and examining one witness. The petitioner was also allowed assistance of defence representative. After conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 20.01.2022 to the disciplinary authority, with a finding that both the charges against the petitioner stand proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 29.01.2022 on the point of punishment. The petitioner was provided opportunity of personal hearing as well as to submit his written submissions. Ultimately, the Disciplinary imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner.
14. 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.
15. 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 (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (10 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] 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 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."
16. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (11 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] 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;
(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;(Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:53205] (12 of 22) [CW-4638/2022]
(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."
17. 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 (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (13 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] 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 judgments 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.
18. 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 provisions of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 applicable to the officers and employees of the respondent bank. The charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner under para 5(j) of the Bipartite settlement, which is for doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank of gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss. The said provision relates to gross misconduct.
19. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant law in regard to scope of judicial review in the quantum of punishment in departmental proceedings. (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (14 of 22) [CW-4638/2022]
20. 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.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 611], held as under:-
"Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the "decision- making process". The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (15 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] 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."
22. In Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. [AIR 2016 SC 101], The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"24. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules.
25. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) then the Courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the punishment.
26. Such power is exercised when the Court finds that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (16 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] 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."
23. Now coming to the case at hand, there are two charges levelled against the petitioner. The first charge is that he unauthorizedly loaded cash into ATM machine without any office order. There is no mention of any particular date on which he committed the said act. The petitioner was working as a Peon- cum-Daftary, which is a class IV post. The procedure of loading cash into ATM machine requires not only cash but also password and key. In the banks, where the said task is not outsourced, the password and key remain strictly under the custody of the officers of the bank, being the custodians of ATM and the cash to be loaded is to be provided by the officers of the bank. It can be reasonably assumed that a Class IV employee of the bank cannot fulfil all the above requirement on its own and furthermore, there cannot be any reason for him to take all the pain for loading the cash into the ATM machine without there being any order from the officers of the bank. This fortifies the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was acting under the directions of the officers of bank for loading the cash into the ATM and thus, the gravity of the act of the petitioner is diluted. (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (17 of 22) [CW-4638/2022]
24. Para 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement defines the act of gross misconduct as doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss. It is beyond comprehension that as to how loading cash into the ATM can be prejudicial to the interests of the bank or can involve the bank in serious loss. The charge-sheet, the enquiry report and the order of punishment does not speak about any fraud, embezzlement or misappropriation of funds, rather all these document simply states about unauthorized loading of cash into the ATM. Since all the cash loaded into the ATM machine is always accounted for, there cannot be any chance of loss to the bank. So far as the negligence on the part of the petitioner is concerned, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, being a Peon, was not in a position to do the alleged unauthorized loading of cash into the ATM on his own without being any direction or order from the officers of the bank and without being provided cash as well as the password and the key. The concerned officers of the bank, being the custodians of the ATM, were having full responsibility to adhere to the procedure provided for loading cash into the ATM and the petitioner cannot be allowed to be made a scapegoat for their dereliction of duty. So far as not having any official order is concerned, the stand of the petitioner is worth consideration that he being a Class IV employee was bound to perform all the duties assigned by the Branch Head and he was not in a position to ask for official order (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (18 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] for each of the duty he performed and any disobedience on his part would have landed him into trouble.
25. The charge No.2 against the petitioner is regarding high value/abnormal transactions in his bank account. In this regard, the petitioner has given the explanation that the said amount was taken as loan from his known persons for the purpose of repair and construction of house. The respondents have not alleged that the said amount is related to any misappropriation or illicit act, thus, even if there is any infraction of rules of the bank, the same cannot be construed as major misconduct attracting harsh punishment of dismissal. Apparently, the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of dismissal from service mainly on account of charge No.1.
26. It is true that the violation of any rules of the bank cannot be left unattended. However, while 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 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 (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (19 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] the gravity of the misconduct. Here, the petitioner's actions, though in breach of procedural rules, lack any criminal intent or severe repercussions on the bank's financial health. Therefore, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service 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 and thus, the inadequate proportionality between the wrong doing and the quantum of punishment has shaken the conscience of this court.
27. Another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination in the matter of punishment. In this regard, he has pointed out that case of similar nature related to one Mr. Keshav Lal Meena, who was the Head Cashier of the same bank, and who too was subjected to departmental proceedings under para 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement regarding the same transaction and a parallel enquiry was conducted against him; however, after conclusion of the enquiry he has been awarded much lesser punishment, i.e. be brought down to a lower stage in the scale of pay to 02 stages for a period of 02 years. The said delinquent, being much higher in rank than the petitioner as he was Head Cashier, had higher responsibilities, still a lenient approach has been taken in his case, whereas a harsh penalty has been imposed in the case of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner being a low ranking employee has been chosen to made an example, to save the real (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (20 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] culprits and to put a curtain on the apparent procedural lapses prevalent in the respondent bank. Though it is true that the petitioner cannot claim parity in the matter of punishment in disciplinary enquiry vis-a-vis delinquent in other disciplinary enquiry, 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 lesser penalty that too in the same case. This comparative leniency towards graver offense raises questions about consistency in the bank's disciplinary measures, reinforcing the argument for reassessment of the petitioner's penalty. The aforesaid instance has 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.
28. The punishment of dismissal from service 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 (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (21 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] 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 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, wholly disproportionate to the gravity of charges and discriminatory too, which shakes the conscience of the Court and persuading it to make interference therein.
29. The plea reaised in the reply to the effect that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner for making theft of the amount of the bank is concerned, in which after investigation charge-sheet has been filed in the competent court cannot be taken into consideration, rather it would be sufficient to say that no such charge has been levelled against the petitioner in the charge- sheet issued by the department and a delinquent cannot be punished for a charge which has not been levelled against him and for which no opportunity has been granted to defend.
30. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 17.02.2022 (Annex.9) passed by the disciplinary (Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53205] (22 of 22) [CW-4638/2022] authority of the respondent bank is set aside to the extent of awarding punishment of 'Be dismissed without notice' to the petitioner. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority for reconsidering the case in respect of 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 dismissal/removal/discharge from service or compulsory retirement.
31. 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 112-Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 10:42:03 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)