IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the discretionary power of the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and the importance of maintaining higher standards of honesty and integrity for Bank employees.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority 01.02.2011 (Annexure P/1) and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 06.08.2011 (Annexure P/6) and the petitioner may kindly be exonerated from all the charges leveled against the petitioner and respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits.

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records i.e. the documents filed by the department and the minutes of departmental inquiry proceeding from the possession of the respondents in respect of the case of the petitioner.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s) which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner was appointed as Cashier cum Clerk vide order dated 02.03.1983 under the respondent Bank. He was promoted to the post of Training Officer with effect from 1st August, 1992. The petitioner worked as a Branch Manager at Shahapur Branch from July, 1996 to June, 1999 and thereafter, he was transferred to Pali (Birsinghpur) Branch where he worked from July, 1999 to September, 2001. The petitioner worked as Manager Credit, Commercial Branch, Gwalior from October, 2001 to December, 2003 and thereafter as Branch Manager, BSP Plant Area Branch, Bhilai from January, 2004 to February, 2004. The services of the petitioner were transferred as Manager, DBD Raipur Main Branch from March, 2004 to May, 2005. He was posted as Branch Manager, Nandani Township Branch in the month of June, 2005. The petitioner was placed under suspension from 14.08.2006 to 12.05.2007 and his services were attached with RBO, IIIrd Bhilai. On 12.05.2007, the order of suspension was revoked and he was posted at RBO, Jagdalpur as Manager Sales. A copy of the article of charges was served on the petitioner on 30.05.2009 and the following allegations were made : (i) acceptance of illegal gratification; (ii) 19 borrowers were given loans for ginger cultivation, and (iii) other loan accounts. On 22.06.2009, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner filed a reply to the article of charges on 15.06.2009. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted the report. A notice was issued to the petitioner along with the inquiry report on 28.06.2010. The petitioner filed a detailed para-wise reply on 22.07.2010. The disciplinary authority passed the order of removal from services on 01.02.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2011.

3. Mr. Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the disciplinary authority, as well as the appellate authority, failed to appreciate the material available on record in its correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous findings. He would further submit that the disciplinary authority initiated the departmental inquiry against the petitioner with premeditation and no material was collected by the Inquiry Officer. He would also submit that the authorities have apparently demonstrated discrimination against the petitioner as another employee of the Bank namely, H.S. Dhurve against whom similar allegations were made, was awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments, whereas, the petitioner has been inflicted with a penalty of removal from service. He would further contend that the incumbents facing charges in departmental inquiry deserve to be treated equally in the matter of punishment. He would also argue that the documents relied upon by the prosecution have been dealt with in a stereotyped and mechanical manner leading to the imposition of penalty and the documents were not proved in accordance with law. He would further