IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries, emphasizing the need for compliance with natural justice and the distinction between criminal trials and disciplinary proceedings.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority by which the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 04.04.2005 has been modified to the extent that recovery to the tune of Rs. 5,90,000/- and stoppage of 5 increments with cumulative effect have been set aside, however, the Appellate Authority has affirmed dismissal from service w.e.f. 04.04.2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was the then Branch Manager of the Sarguja Kshetriya Bank (Now Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank) and in the intervening night of 29/30.06.2001, incident of theft of Rs. 5,90,000/- has taken place in the Kelhari Branch of the respondent Bank. As such, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 09.11.2001 and following charges were levelled against the petitioner :-

3. The service condition of the employees and officers of the Bank are governed by the Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank Adhikari Aum Karmchari Seva Vinium, 2000 (in short ‘the Regulation of 2000’). The Regulation of 2000 has been framed by the Bank under Section 30 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 by the Board of Directors of Central Bank which is sponsored bank and with the consultation of NABARD and prior approval of the Central Government. As such, it has statutory force. Clause 38 of the said Regulation defines ‘Misconduct’ and the charges levelled against the petitioner fall within the ambit of major misconduct as defined in the Regulation. Clause 38 of the Regulation also provides procedure for imposing major penalty by conducting inquiry wherein the delinquent should be given proper opportunity to defend his case. Accordingly, the respondent Bank appointed Inquiry Officer vide order dated 09.01.2001 who has conducted inquiry as per the procedure prescribed under the Regulation of 2000. The Inquiry Officer after appreciating the evidence and materials on record submitted his report on 12.10.2004. The Bank has forwarded the inquiry report on 19.10.2004 to the petitioner and directed him to submit explanation with regard to filing of the inquiry report. The petitioner who was in jail at Manendragarh has submitted his reply on 30.10.2004 wherein he has stated that he could not produce the defence witness therefore, he did not want to inquiry proceeding and has submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.04.2005. The Disciplinary Authority after going through the records of the inquiry proceeding, reply submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 04.04.2005 has imposed punishment of removal from service, withholding of 5 increments with cumulative effect and also ordered for recover of loss caused to the Bank to the tune Rs. 5,90,000/-.

4. Being aggrieved with the order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Board of Directors but the Board of Directors has rejected the said appeal vide its order dated 26.10.2007. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No. 7535/2007 which has been partly allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2018 Annexure P/4 by setting aside the order dated 26.10.2007 passed by this Appellate Authority and remitted the matter before the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The appeal was not decided by the Appellate Authority within the stipulated time period given by this Court, therefore, the petitioner has filed WPS No. 4541/2018. This Court vide order dated 07.07.2023 has disposed off the petition by imposing cost of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the count of in-action on part of the Bank in deciding the appeal within the stipulated time period given by this Court and also directed to decide the appeal within 3 months from the date of passing of the order. Being aggrieved with the imposition of cost the resp