The court ruled that punishment for misconduct must be proportional to the offense, particularly when the alleged wrongful acts are minor and inadvertently committed.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of the orders of the learned Single Judge in WP No.30437 of 2014 dated 15.12.2023. The writ petitioner filed WA No.193 of 2024, against the order of the learned Single Judge in WP No.30437 of 2014, insofar as it is against her and the respondent-Bank filed WA No.169 of 2024, being aggrieved by the directions issued against it.

2. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.

3. The facts of the case are the writ petitioner was employed as clerk-cum-cashier in the 1st respondent Bank, Narsapuram Branch, in the year 1977. Thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant Manager and continuing as such, till her suspension from service proceedings dated 21.08.2009. Subsequently, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging irregularities committed by her during her tenure. Thereafter, charge memo was issued framing the following charges :

"(i) You have unauthorizedly debited the branch charges a/c in the system on several occasions and credited the amount to your personal loan a/c and gained pecuniary to yourself.

(ii) You have unauthorizedly altered the amount of debits to charges a/c in the system and credited the difference amount to your personal loan a/c and gained pecuniary benefit to yourself.

(iii) You have drawn reimbursement of conveyance bill/entertainment bills for the month of January, 2009 twice.

(iv) You have claimed 100% reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of your spouse on 10.03.2009 instead of eligible 75%."

4. In pursuance thereof, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.09.2011, holding Charges 1, 2 and 5 as proved and 3 and 4 as not proved. Pursuant to the Enquiry Officer's report, the disciplinary authority issued proceedings dated 03.10.2011, differing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, he observed that the finding of the enquiry officer that the Charge No.IV, is not proved, should have been held as proved. Thus, after going through the evidence recorded, he held that the Charge No.IV, as not proved. The disciplinary authority, called for explanation of the petitioner, on the enquiry officer's report. The petitioner has submitted her reply. The disciplinary authority observed that the delinquent misused the official position for personal gains in gross violation of the service terms and conditions. The disciplinary authority observed that the petitioner did not show her integrity in discharge of her official duties. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 30.03.2012, passed the order of dismissal from service. Against the order of dismissal from service, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority dismissing the writ petitioner from service.

5. Heard Sri Kota Venkata Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent.

6. Perused the record.

7. The observation of the disciplinary authority that the petitioner has misused the position held by her in the bank, in crediting the amounts fraudulently to her accounts.

8. As noted from the amounts alleged to have been credited by the writ petitioner to her personal accounts, they range from Rs.210/- to Rs.11,313/- between 19.09.2008 and 21.07.2009. The petitioner's explanation was that she was not acquainted with the Core Banking System, and due to work pressure, the amounts were erroneously credited to her account. It is further stated that immediately upon noticing the same, the amounts were stated to have been credited to the charges accou