Point of Law : Unless punishment is shockingly/strikingly disproportionate or harsh, in normal circumstances, Court cannot interfere with the same and that too when said order of punishment has been confirmed by Appellate Authority.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the retired employee of the respondent-Bank with prayers to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order Annexure-H dated 06.04.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings bearing No. 013/PD: IRD/DA-7 and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pension of the petitioner with interest at 18%.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition as revealed from the records narrated briefly are, the petitioner was working as Manager of the respondent-Bank at Ballari for the period between 2007 to 2011. On 03.11.2011, article of charges were issued against the petitioner for having violated the rules and norms of the Bank while processing the loans to the agriculturists. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the said article of charges on 11.11.2011. Thereafter, a corrigendum to the article of charges was served on the petitioner on 21.12.2011. Since the management was not satisfied with the reply given to the article of charges, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. After completion of the enquiry, a report was filed by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. After service of the said report, the petitioner had submitted his reply to the same. However, the Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the reply had passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner on 13.09.2014. In the meantime, on 13.05.2012, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 13.09.2014, the petitioner had preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority on 21.11.2014 vide Annexure-H. Assailing the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the reading of the charge sheet itself, it can be said that the management was biased against the petitioner, as a decision was already taken for conducting an enquiry against the petitioner, even before he had submitted a reply to the article of charges. He submits that the petitioner was not supplied with the documents alongwith charge sheet and therefore, the enquiry was vitiated. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Another vs. Madanlal Tandon, (2015) 8 SCC 461 and G.V. Aswathanarayana vs. Central Bank of India, by Chairman, Bombay and Others, ILR 2003 Kar. 3066. He submits that the charges found in the article of charges against the petitioner are vague in nature and therefore, the enquiry cannot be said to have been held in a fair and proper manner against the petitioner. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others (2011) 5 SCC 142 and in the case of G.V. Aswathanarayana vs. Central Bank of India, by Chairman, Bombay and Others, ILR 2003 Kar 3066. He submits that as on the date of passing the order of dismissal, the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation and had retired from service and therefore, the continuation of the enquiry against the petitioner after retirement was bad in law. He submits that even if the regulations permitted the Bank to continue the enquiry even after retirement, punishment of dismissal cannot be imposed on the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank and Others vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla, (2018) 14 SCC 92.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that merely for the reason, in the article of charges it has been mentioned that petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry, no prejudice is caused to the