A finding based on some evidence is entirely different from a finding based on no evidence.

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the punishment of removal inflicted on him by the respondent-bank through its order dated 22.07.2005, as was confirmed by the departmental appellate authority through order dated 01.02.2006. The petitioner has also sought a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the respondent-bank with all consequential benefits, including the back wages.

The facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman having served in the Indian Air Force. After the completion of his service in Indian Air Force, the petitioner joined the respondent-bank on 07.06.2006; later he was promoted in 1980 to Management Specialist Scale-I; and subsequently, transferred to Hyderabad Zonal Office in January, 1982.

When he was working in Hyderabad Zonal Office, the petitioner was entrusted with the work of credit cards, since the respondent-bank started credit card system known as ‘Central Card’ in the month of August, 1980. In course of time, the petitioner was also promoted from Scale-I to Scale-II in 1991. Given his earlier experience in the credit cards, the petitioner was once again entrusted with the work in Central Card Department at Zonal Office, Hyderabad to look after the business of credit cards, both in Andhra Pradesh and in Karnataka States.

In August, 2002, the respondent-bank introduced electronic credit card scheme for the first time among the nationalized banks and undertook a drive to issue maximum credit cards by fixing targets to the officers to canvass for the business for a huge number of electronic credit cards. Though the petitioner was given charge of the entire zone for canvassing and enrolling the names of the credit card holders, no guidelines were fixed for processing the applications.

As part of the drive, the petitioner has processed and forwarded several applications to the Chief Manager, Credit Cards Division, Zonal Office, Hyderabad, who is the competent authority. The practice indicates that the Chief Manager, after going through the process of examining the applications, was required to sanction the cards and further recommend to the Central Card Department, Mumbai for issuance of the electronic credit cards.

In this process, on 29.12.2003, the petitioner received a memo informing that the petitioner received 40 applications for issuance of cards without taking prudent care and verification of the details in the application form. He was asked to submit within seven days his explanation why action should not be initiated for the lapses said to have been committed by him. The petitioner in turn gave a detailed explanation on 08.01.2004. Not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority issued a charge memo dated 29.09.2004, which contained the following charges:

"a) Mr. C.R. Damodara Reddy while working as Manager, Central Card Dept., ZO., Hyderabad is alleged to have committed the following acts of omissions as processing officer while recommending for issuance of Central Card (Electronic) to 40 persons during August, 2002.

He failed to take all prudent care to verify the details furnished in the applications. Knowing fully well the various glaring irregularities and discrepancies in such information, he failed to bring these aspects to the notice of the Sanctioning Authority but chose to recommend the proposals, thereby acted detrimental to the interest of Bank and there is no recovery in these and the overdue position as on 18.11.2003 is Rs.22.13 lac.

He is thus alleged that the above acts of omissions is a gross dereliction in discharge of his duties and as a dealing officer he failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer and exposed Bank’s funds to serious financial risks.

b) Mr. C.R. Damodara Reddy is alleged to have mis-utilized his off