JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The petitioner was an employee of respondent bank who after 37 years of service has retired from the service on superannuation in the year 2018. The petitioner has challenged an order of disciplinary proceeding initiated by the respondent bank against him. Wherein he was imposed punishment by the order of the disciplinary-cum appointing authority.

2. The grounds for challenging the order of disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. In this writ petition is manly two fold--

3. Firstly, the order of disciplinary authority is perfunctory, purposive and in violation of the natural justice. Secondly, the award of punishment is disproportionate.

4. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the bank has failed to prove any of the charges, instead the bank has imposed a major punishment. He further argued that the punishment is not proportionate to the alleged charge against the present petitioner. He further argued that the Bank’s manual is very clear about the charges and and required punishment. In this case no direct allegation were proved against the present petitioner but only on the basis of complicity the present petitioner was punished.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has elaborately demonstrated each and charges before this court and tried to convince this court that allegation against the present petitioner has not been sufficiently proved. He submits that it has been alleged by the bank authority that the present petitioner had not verified the KYC documents/credentials of the applicant borrowers to ensure their genuineness for availing Produce Marketing Loan before recommending for sanction of 58 PML’s. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was not entrusted to verify the KYC of PML applicant other officers was assigned for the purposes. The Bank officials are well aware of the fact, but they have only made the petitioner slape goat. He further argued during witness action, DW1 has specifically stated before the disciplinary authority that Petitioner was not entrusted to verify the KYC documents. In support of his contention Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied some decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as follows:

In United Bank of India Vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee (2022) 13 SCC 349 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-

The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/ Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

In Ramlal Vs State of Rajasthan And Ors. (2024) 1 SCC 175 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-

It is very clear that relevant and material evidence being, the deposition of PW 5/Raj Singh; the marksheet of 8th class of the appellant (enclosed to the charge-sheet) and the original marksheet independently marked as Ext. D-3 by the defence have been completely left out in the discussion and consideration. Inference has been drawn about the proof of the charges by ignoring crucial, relevant and material evidence which had come on record. The evidence of PW 5 Raj Singh and the marksheet enclosed in the documents annexed to the charge-sheet and the original marksheet marked as Ext. D-3, were materials having a direct bearing on the charge. The disciplinary authority has merely reiterated the reasoning in the enquiry report. Equally so are the findings of the appellate authority. It is well settled that if the findings of the disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring the relevant material the court in judicial review can interfere. It is only to satisfy