Disciplinary actions must follow principles of natural justice, and punishment should only be altered if found shockingly disproportionate; lack of proof for a charge does not justify changing penalties based on other charges.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. The challenge is mounted in this Intra Court appeal of the Bank to the order of learned Single Judge passed in WPA No. 29678 of 2016 decided on 20.09.2023. The learned Single Judge by impugned order interfered in the disciplinary proceedings and modified/reduced the punishment originally imposed on the writ petitioner.

Factual background

2. The necessary facts for adjudication of this matter are that while working as a Branch Manager at Kalighat Branch of respondent/Bank for a period between 08.07.2004 to 12.05.2007, the petitioner was served with a memo dated 31.10.2011 whereby petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within 7 days. In turn, petitioner submitted his explanation to the Bank. The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with petitioner’s explanation and, therefore, the memorandum of charge sheet dated 06.12.2013 was issued against the petitioner containing two charges. Since petitioner denied the charges and disciplinary authority was not satisfied with his explanation, an inquiry was instituted. After recording the evidence, the Enquiry Officer in his report found that both the charges have been partially proved against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the disciplinary authority against the report of Enquiry Officer. However, the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with his explanation and, accordingly, imposed the punishment of:

“Reduction of Basic Pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for the period up to his superannuation i.e. 31.05.2015, with further direction that the officer will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction in terms of Regulation 4(f) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976,”

4. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the petitioner filed WPA No.29678 of 2016. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition and opined that charge no. 2 deserves interference and punishment imposed in relation to charge no. 1 needs to be modified. Thus, learned Single Judge itself substituted the punishment.

Contention of Bank

5. Sri Bishwambhar Jha, learned Counsel for the Bank submits that in the departmental enquiry, full, reasonable and effective opportunity of defence was afforded to the delinquent officer. The principles of natural justice were duly followed. The punishment imposed is commensurate to the misconduct. Thus, learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with charge no. 1 and substituting the punishment based thereupon. In support of these contentions, he placed reliance in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. vs. Kishore Sukla & Anr. reported in AIR 1996 SCC 1561, V.Ramama vs. A.P.SRTC & Ors. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 338 , State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Bela Bagchi & Ors. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 435, State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. N. Gangaraj reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 and Union of India and Ors. vs. Constable Sunil Kumar reported in (2023) 3 SCC 622.

6. It is submitted that the interference of learned Single Judge on charge no. 1 is solely on the ground that said charge no. 2 was in relation to sanction of cash credit limit in favour of M/s. Gobinda Stores. In the memo dated 31.10.2011 there was no allegations in relation to M/s. Gobinda Stores and, therefore, learned Single Judge opined that this allegation in relation to said stores was illegally incorporated in charge no. 2. Criticizing the finding, learned Counsel for Bank submits that after issuance of memorandum dated 31.10.2011, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 06.12.2013. In the said charge she