Partha Sarthy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ application for setting aside the order of punishment contained in the letter dated 25.10.2010 issued by the Disciplinary Authority-cum- Chief General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Jaipur, as also for setting aside the order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Managing Director, SBBJ, Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier from April 1994 to 23.07.2001 in the RBlock Branch, Patna of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’). An FIR was lodged being Sachivalay P.S. Case No. 101 of 2008 by the Branch Manager against the account holder of Account No. 01190020210 ie Apoorva Mukherjee, and the then Branch Manager when the account was opened.

4. As per allegations in the FIR one Ranjana Mishra had approached the Branch with a Special Term Deposit receipt having a maturity value of Rs. 50,309/-, requesting for payment of the maturity amount through the newly opened account. On verification of the records, it transpired that the amount had been debited on 22.5.2001 and credited to the savings bank account opened by Apoorva Mukherjee. On further inquiry it was found that amounts from different inoperative accounts and deposits had been transferred to this account of Apoorva Mukherjee and a total sum of Rs. 3,09,000/- was withdrawn in cash.

5. The Vigilance Cell of the Bank, upon investigation, found that while the petitioner was posted as Clerk in the R-Block Branch of the Bank, three cheques had been presented by Apoorva Mukherjee before him on 11.06.2001 and 14.06.2001. On the basis of the investigation conducted by the Vigilance Cell of the Bank, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner wherein a memo of charge was issued on 21.1.2010 to which the petitioner replied.

6. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.6.2010 finding all the three charges to have been proved against the petitioner. A copy of the inquiry report was provided to the petitioner to which he filed his reply.

7. Having gone through the inquiry report, the petitioner’s reply as also the other materials in the departmental proceeding, by order dated 25.10.2010, the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Chief General Manager imposed the penalty of reduction of basic pay by three stages with cumulative effect on the petitioner. The basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 21,700/ as on 1.10.2010, Rs. 22,500/ w.e.f. 1.10.2011, Rs. 23,300/ w.e.f. 1.10.2012 and the basic pay of Rs. 24,100/ w.e.f. 1.10.2013. It was further ordered that the petitioner will not be eligible for promotion during the said period. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority/Managing Director which was rejected on 22.2.2012. It is against this order of punishment and the order rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner that the instant application has been preferred.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to that imposed on the other six staff members. So far as the others are concerned Smt. Sumitra Mandal, Branch Manager, Sri S.K. Singh, the Accountant and Smt. Leena Singh, the Assistant Manager were all penalized only with the penalty of ‘censure’. Further Dilip Kumar and Ashok, Clerks of the bank, were given ‘warning’ and Smt. Ranjana Kumari, the Clerk, were given the penalty of reduction of three increments. Learned counsel submitted that the role performed by the petitioner was more or less similar to the other six staff members. However, imposition of the penalty on the petitioner, as stated above was disproportionate, discriminatory and fit to be set aside.

9. The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the Bank. It was