The court emphasized that judgments on penalties in disciplinary proceedings should respect the discretion of the disciplinary authority unless they are shockingly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

1. The Writ Appeal No.1901 of 2024 is preferred against the order dated 25.09.2024 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.28289/2013 (S-RES).

2. We have heard Shri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Udaya Shankar Rai.P, learned Advocate appearing for the Indian Bank and Shri P.S. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Anand S.G., learned Advocate appearing for the respondent.

3. The Writ Petition had been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"a) ISSUE a Writ in the nature of certiorari to Quash the order bearing No.BGZO;VIG;528:2010-11 as per ANNEXURE-K dated 02.04.2011 and the order dated 14.07.2011 bearing No.1575 VG; SR No.18864: APP: 2011-12 as per ANNEXURE-M passed by Respondent, and order dated 26.05.2012 bearing No. VG:FC 1988:801:REV;SRI 8664-2012-13 as per ANNEXURE-P.

b) To reinstate the Petitioner to the original post and to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of Salary, pay fixation with 12% interest from the date of the order of punishment."

4. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge considered the contentions advanced on either side and held that the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings was proper. However, on the ground that "A birds eye view of the facts extracted in the enquiry does show that the petitioner is guilty of some misconduct in the matter of ensuring transparency in transactions brought about by him and also in not ensuring the safety and security of the business interest of the Bank. This however, does not justify the imposition of major punishment of compulsory retirement."

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in substituting his own reasoning for the reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority which is completely impermissible in law. It submitted that after specifically finding that the charges alleged against the Writ Petitioner stood proved in a properly conducted enquiry, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to have substituted the penalty with absolutely no justification at all.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions:-

• Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others v. T.T. Murali Babu , (2014) 4 SCC 108

• General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India and another v. R. Periyasamy, (2015) 3 SCC 101

• Western Coal Fields Ltd. v. Manohar Govinda Fulzele disposed of on 17.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 2608/2025

7. The learned senior counsel has also placed the Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 for our perusal.

8. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the entire enquiry report is based on statements in the preliminary enquiry report without any supporting material to substantiate the charges. The Head Office Circular referred to in the memo of charges was not produced in the enquiry. No proper procedure was followed in the enquiry and no oral evidence was adduced. It is submitted that only the punishment of bar of 2 increments was imposed on the respondent's predecessor in office which was also later restored. It is therefore contended that the respondent was subjected to hostile discrimination in the matter of imposition of punishment.

9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the employee/respondent relies on the following decisions:-

• Moni Shankar v. Union of India and another, (2008) 3 SCC 484

• Govt. of A.P