The court upheld the disciplinary authority's dismissal of a bank employee, asserting the seriousness of financial misconduct justifies strict penalties, emphasizing that judicial review should not substitute the authority's judgment unless truly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

This Writ appeal is filed by the employer - Bank against the Order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.41108/2010, interfering with the Order of the Disciplinary Authority and modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement.

2. We have heard Shri S.S. Ramdas, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. Anjandev Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent.

3. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent had been dismissed from service after following all due procedure and after conducting the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.

4. The Articles of Charges, which were issued to him, read as follows:

"ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.1

During your tenure as Asst. Manager at Bank's Indiranagar branch, Bangalore from 06.06.2005 to 13.03.2007, you have alleged to have committed irregularities in the matter of handling cheques purchased under "clean Bills Purchase" (CBP) head of account and thus failed to comply with the guidelines of the Bank contained in Manual of Instructions-Advances, 2002-2003.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.2

During your tenure as Asst.Manager at Bank's Indiranagar branch, Bangalore from 06.06.2005 to 13.03.2007, you have alleged to have committed irregularities in the matter of passing/effecting entries in the sensitive head of account - "Clearing Suspense A/c" & thus failed to comply with the guidelines of the Bank contained in Manual of instruction-Deposits, 2002- 2003."

5. The charges were supported by Statement of Allegations. The respondent submitted his written objections to the Articles of Charges dated 23.08.2008, which is produced as Annexure 'B'. He admitted that it is the usual practice when clearing instruments are received to check the balance in the account and to keep instruments which cannot be cleared for reasons such as insufficiency of funds etc, in Clearance/Suspense overnight and if the customer makes the payment on the next day, the instruments would be cleared. It was contended that this is a common practice prevailing at the branches and that the Indiranagar Branch cannot be an exception.

6. A full-fledged enquiry was conducted and the charges were found proved. After issuing show cause notice with a copy of the inquiry report and considering the reply of the respondent, the punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted. Though appeal and review were filed, the same were also dismissed.

7. The respondent challenged the dismissal from service before the learned Single Judge contending that no financial loss had occurred to the Bank. A detailed statement of objection was placed on record by the Bank. However, the learned Single Judge found that the punishment of dismissal from service for the misconduct of not following the prescribed procedure in handling instruments is excessive and grossly disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the respondent. The learned Single Judge therefore held that the extreme punishment of dismissal from service was not warranted and substituted the punishment with that of compulsory retirement from service. It is also ordered that the retirement benefits due shall be released to the respondent.

8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank submits that in a case where the employer is a Bank and the employee is an Assistant Manager of the Bank and also in the light of the clear allegations of financial irregularity alleged against the employee, the learned Single