Employee disciplinary proceedings must adhere to natural justice principles; major penalties can be overturned if disproportionate to misconduct severity, especially when no financial harm occurred.

ORDER :

R. Nataraj, J.

W.P. No.29738/2019 is filed challenging an order bearing No.PAD:DISC:346/2015:1592/2018 dated 30.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 imposing major punishment and to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restore all the service benefits which were deprived pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No.3. She has also challenged an order bearing No. PAD:DISC:246/2017:374:2019 dated 10.05.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. W.P. No.10996/2019 is filed challenging an order bearing No.PAD.DISC.256/2017:2076 dated 20.02.2019, by which, the petitioner was denied permission to participate in the promotion process for the year 2019-20.

3. W.P. No.5598/2020 is filed challenging an order bearing in HO Memorandum No.44/2020 dated 02.03.2020, by which, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 were promoted to Middle Management Grade-IV in violation of an interim order granted in WP No.10996/2019.

Facts as pleaded in the above petitions:

4. (i) The petitioner was appointed as an employee of the respondent-Bank on 21.08.1986 and she served various branches of the bank in various capacities from time to time. The petitioner served as the branch head of the respondent- Bank at its new rural branch Brahmanipura, Ramanagara Taluk from 30.06.2012 till 12.07.2016 when she was promoted as Scale-III officer and posted as Senior Manager of Whitefield Branch, Bangalore. She contends that from 03.09.2015 to 12.07.2016, when she was at Brahmanipura branch, she was not in charge of sanctioning of loans and that during the said period, loans were sanctioned and approved by the Zonal Office till the respondent No.5 took charge from her as the Branch Head of Brahmanipura.

(ii) She contends that regular audits of the branch was conducted from time to time for the period 30.06.2012 to 13.08.2015 and all the loans sanctioned and transactions made during the said period was found to be in order and no adverse report was made by the concerned auditor. Likewise, an internal audit report dated 19.08.2015 covered the transactions and the loans of the branch for the period 10.03.2014 to 13.08.2015. Thereafter, the regular internal audit report dated 10.02.2017 covered the transactions and loans of the branch for the period 14.08.2015 to 03.02.2017. The regular internal audit report dated 08.03.2018 covered the transactions and the loans sanctioned by the branch between 04.02.2017 to 26.02.2018. The petitioner contends that the audit report dated 10.02.2017 was extraneous, perverse and without jurisdiction, as it went against the principles of audit. She contends that the audit team could not have reviewed the previous audit done for the earlier periods and the scope of audit was for transactions and loans of the branch for the period 14.08.2015 to 03.02.2017 only and not for the period earlier to it.

(iii) She contends that the inspection and audit division of the respondent-Bank on the basis of a non-existing inspection and special audit report dated 10.02.2017 sought rectification of irregularities observed in the audit report dated 10.02.2017 by letters dated 11.07.2017 and 18.07.2017. She contends that she complied with irregularities pointed out. Nonetheless, the vigilance department of the respondent-Bank sought comments on certain loans granted and the same was clarified and intimated that all loans sanctioned by her were secured, keeping the interest of the b