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)