JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants^1.[For short, ‘the Bank’] aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court²[High Court of Judicature at Patna] in appeal³[LPA No.1283 of 2018] filed by them. By the impugned judgment intra-court appeal filed by the Bank was dismissed against the order⁴[Dated 16.05.2018 in C.W.J.C. No.3594 of 2013] passed by the Single Bench of the High Court.

2. The respondent had approached the High Court by filing writ petition⁵[C.W.J.C. No.3594 of 2013] challenging order dated 07.12.2012 passed in statutory appeal filed by him before the Appellate Authority, by which his punishment was reduced from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits.

3. Briefly the facts available on record are that the respondent joined the Bank as a messenger in the year 1997. In April 2008, complaints were received against the respondent for taking bribe for coordination in sanction of loans. Vide notice dated 15.11.2008, the Bank called upon the respondent to explain his absence from duty and that he had been executing some loan documents at his residence and bank branch as well.

4. Not being satisfied with the reply of the respondent, the Bank issued a formal Memo of Charge to the respondent on 05.01.2010 regarding allegation of his being a conduit for getting the loans sanctioned and taking illegal gratification. The respondent, on 12.02.2010, submitted his reply to the chargesheet. On 10.03.2010, the Disciplinary Authority appointed inquiry officer to enquire into the truthfulness of the allegations made against the respondent. On 04.10.2010, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report by holding the respondent guilty of acting as a middleman for sanction and disbursement of loans at the branch by taking illegal gratification and his unauthorized absence from duty from 20.04.2008 to 25.04.2008 was also proved. Copy of the report was supplied to the respondent and show cause notice was issued on 29.12.2010, before imposition of penalty. He appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 08.01.2011 claimed innocence and sought forgiveness for any mistake committed.

5. Vide order dated 08.01.2011, accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ was imposed upon the respondent. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent preferred statutory appeal. Taking a compassionate view, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.12.2012, reduced the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits. Still not satisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority, the respondent preferred writ petition⁶[C.W.J.C. No.3594 of 2013] before the High Court. The same was allowed by the Single Bench. The order of punishment was set aside and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with back wages. The Single Bench also granted liberty to initiate fresh proceeding against the petitioner therein including all other persons involved in the said misconduct. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Single Bench, the Bank preferred intra-court appeal⁷[L.P.A. No.1283 of 2018] which was dismissed⁸[Dated 14.12.2022] by the Division Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Division Be