The court upheld the principle of proportionality in punishment and emphasized the importance of considering the unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings when determining service benefits.

JUDGMENT

VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. - These two intra court appeals arise out of the order dtd. 13/7/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10730/2010, and therefore, the same are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them in the writ petition.

4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly narrated are, the petitioner who was working as a Manager was proceeded against for the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet dtd. 23/3/1987 (Annexure-B) and pursuant to the enquiry held in respect of the alleged charges, he was dismissed from service on 22/2/1989. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.6826/1990 and this Court allowed the said writ petition on 24/10/1997 and having quashed the order of dismissal dtd. 22/2/1989, had remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The said order was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.96/1998 by order dtd. 3/3/1998. Pursuant to the remand, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order dtd. 10/8/2007 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement against the petitioner and the period spent under suspension/dismissal i.e., from 13/8/1984 to 18/12/2006 was considered as not being treated as one spent on duty for which service benefits were denied to the petitioner. The order dtd. 10/8/2007 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.10730/2010. The learned Single Judge of this Court while confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, had held that the respondents were not justified in denying the benefit of continuity of service for the period from 13/8/1984 to 18/12/2006 and accordingly directed the respondents to count the said period as continuity of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits to be paid to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have filed W.P.No.2964/2018, while the petitioner has filed W.A.No.2269/2019.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed is not disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order. He submits that no reasons have been assigned by the learned Single Judge for directing the respondents to count the service of the petitioner from 13/8/1984 to 18/12/2006 as continuity of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits to be paid to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BOLORAM BORDOLOI VS LAKHIMI GAOLIA BANK & OTHERS, JT 2021(2) SC .and CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE VS HC (GD) OM PRAKASH.(2022)5 SCC 100 .

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the charge sheet was issued on 23/3/1987, the order of compulsory retirement was passed on 10/8/2007. He submits that after the remittal of the matter by this Court, the respondents did not proceed with the enquiry and they kept the petitioner under suspension throughout without even paying the subsistence allowance. He submits that for nearly 23 years, the petitioner was denied employment for no fault of his. He submits that though the petitioner has raised several grounds in his appeal, he would be restricting his grievance only in so far as denial of subsistence allowance payment.

7. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the subsistence allowance has been paid to the petitioner throughout and the Bank is not due to pay any amount to the petitioner towards subsistence allowance.

8. The material on record would go to show that the petitioner was initially kept under suspension from 13/8/1984 onwards. However, the charge sheet was issued against him only on 28/3/1987. The ord