The central legal point established in the judgment is the standard of honesty and integrity expected from bank officers and the principles of interference with the quantum of punishment under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Rakesh Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Mukesh Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank').

2. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the appellate order dated 04-02-2009 whereby the punishment imposed upon the petitioner of compulsory retirement has been confirmed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of entire disciplinary proceeding, which was initiated against him.

3. Before I proceed further, it would be necessary to notice that on 02-07-2009, a Bench of this Court had categorically said that "This application can only be considered for the limited aspect of proportionality of sentence. There are no other legal issues involved to be considered" and thereafter, the learned counsel for the Bank was asked to file counter affidavit.

4. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner while was functioning as Assistant Manager at Amwara Chowk branch of the Central Bank of India, there was allegation of certain misconduct committed by the petitioner and finally, while he was posted as Manager, Dumra Branch, a memo was issued against the petitioner asking his explanation on the point that on 15-11-2002, one Dinesh Mahto, SB A/c holder of Amwara Chowk branch had approached the branch for maturity payment of F.D.Rs. After that he desired to reinvest Rs. 2,68,800/- in MMDC scheme of the Bank, which was debited to his SB account, but the petitioner, instead of Bank F.D.R., issued F.D.Rs. of the Central Bank Adhikari Grih Nirman Swablambi Sahkari Samiti. In the year 2006, when Sri Mahto approached Branch for pre-mature payment of said FDR's, he was surprised to know that the said FDR's don't pertain to Ambara Chowk Branch of the Central Bank of India, but said Samiti. When Sri Mahto contacted the petitioner, the petitioner issued four cheques of CD account no. 329 Sahu Pokhar Branch, which also returned unpaid due to insufficient fund. It was also indicated in the memo that the party had no other option but to file a suit against the petitioner. The said memo was replied by the petitioner and finally, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, the conducting officer found him guilty and finally, punishment of compulsory retirement was passed by the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 0805-2008 issued under the signature of Zonal Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority (Annexure - 8 to the writ petition). The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal, which too was rejected, vide order dated 4th February, 2009 (Annexure - 1 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. Since, at the very outset, a Bench of this Court had recorded that the writ petition can only be heard on the quantum of punishment, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument to the quantum of punishment. He submits that the charge, on which the petitioner was held guilty, was actually not misconduct on the part of the petitioner and as such, in absence of any misconduct, the order of compulsory retirement was excessive & harsh and as such, same is liable to be set aside. Relying on a recent judgment of this Court, reported in 2017 (2) PLJR 634 (Ravindra Nath v. Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramm Bank), he submits that once there is no element of any misconduct, the order of punishment of compulsory retirement is required to be interfered with.

6. Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent/ Bank, opposing the prayer, submits that so far as quantum of punishment is concerned, time without number, it has been held that unless the punishment is shocking to the conscience of the Court, the Court is required to be refrained from interfering with the quantum of punishment. To substantiate his submission,