The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasons in the decision-making process, adherence to the principles of natural justice, and the limited scope of judicial review in interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

JUDGMENT

1. This intra court appeal emanates from the order dtd. 8/10/2019 passed by learned Single Judge by which in a writ petition preferred by the respondent, the order of punishment as well as orders passed by the appellate authority dtd. 20/9/2007 and 8/2/2008 respectively have been quashed and the appellant has been directed to pay all the consequential service benefits to the respondent along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. In addition, the appellant has further been directed to pay medical expenses for which respondent was permitted to furnish the medical particulars. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention, which are stated hereinafter.

2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee' for short) joined the services of the State Bank of Mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' for short) as a clerk on 15/1/1979. The employee was promoted as Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I and as Manager in Middle Management Grade Scale-II in December 1991 and December 1997 respectively.

3. The employee worked as a Branch Manager at BTM Layout, Bangalore for three years and thereafter, as Branch Manager from 26/6/2003 till 12/6/2004 at J.P.Nagar Branch of the Bank. The employee thereafter served between a period from 16/6/2004 to 28/5/2005 as Branch Manager of Anekal Branch of the Bank. The appellant noticed some irregularities and misconduct committed by the employee while he was working as Branch Manager at J.P.Nagar Branch.

4. Thereafter, a charge sheet dtd. 28/4/2006 containing Articles of Charges, Statement of Imputations based upon the Articles of Charges was served. The following three charges were framed against the employee, which are reproduced below for the facility of reference:

"Charge I

In respect of the following 6 housing loan accounts considered as a single project and sanctioned by controlling authority based on your recommendation. Said six names are as under:

1. Shalini Ashok

2. M.Suresh

3. Mini Annamma

4. J.Madan Kumar

5. D.T.Ethiraj

6. S.Jayaram

Charge II

You have failed to notice the following discrepancies in respect of the following borrowers already mentioned in Charge I and to take corrective measures.

Charge III

Without ascertaining credit worthiness you have sanctioned the following loan limits to Sri.N.Sanjeev Nedungadi, who had instructed the developer of the above project mentioned in Charge-I. It transpires that this borrower is the brother of the developer who had already having a housing loan of Rs.14.75 lacs, which was irregular.

5. The employee was asked to file reply to the charge sheet within 15 days from the date of receipt of the charge sheet. However, the employee failed to respond to the charge sheet. The Bank by an order dtd. 26/10/2006 appointed an Enquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer. Thereafter, an enquiry was held. The employee participated in the enquiry and engaged a defence assistant of his choice. The Bank adduced the evidence in the departmental enquiry and examined two witnesses viz., Chandrababu, Deputy Manager of Gangenahalli Branch of the Bank and S.B.Shivakumar, Manager at J.P.Nagar Branch, and filed several documents, copies of which were supplied to the employee. The employee however, neither examined himself nor produced any evidence in support of his defence. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry on 8/6/2007 and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority vide communication dtd. 22/6/2007.

6. A copy of the Enquiry Report was furnished to the employee who submitted his reply on 27/7/2007. The disciplinary authority by an order dtd. 20/9/2007 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on the employee. The said order was upheld in appeal by an order dtd. 8/2/2008 passed by the appellate authority. The employee filed a review and thereafter, a writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the review petition preferred by the employee was dismissed by an