The main legal point established is that the penalty imposed must be proportionate to the misconduct committed, considering factors such as lack of financial loss, absence of criminal acts, and inordinate delay in the charge sheet.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.06.2003, whereby punishment of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

2. Vide the instant petition, order dated 27.02.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority has also been challenged, which confirmed the punishment of removal from service.

3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that keeping in view the long drawn litigation and having attained the age of 61 years, the petitioner feels that the substantial interest of justice would be met if his case is decided on the principle of “proportionately of punishment”.

4. To strengthen the plea raised above, ld. Counsel has relied upon a case of Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer R.K. Rai, Allahabad Bank and Ors. (2003) SCC 480, wherein it is held as under:

“The power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited. But when relevant factors are not taken note of, which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment, certainly the Court can direct reconsideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded.”

5. Ld. Counsel further relied upon a case of Cement Corporation of India Ltd. V. M.L. Aggarwal & Anr. 149 (2008) DLT 291 (DB) wherein it is held as under:

“The petitioner is guilty of misconduct and has to be suitably punished for the misconduct. However the nature of misconduct is more in the nature of violation of practice and procedure than in the nature of corruption. In view of what is stated in the foregoing paragraphs, it appears that the extreme penalty of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the offence.

21. The aforesaid reasons reflect an angle which is required to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority. It is not clear from the order of the Disciplinary Authority as to whether the aforesaid relevant materials and factors were considered while imposing the punishment of removal on the writ petitioner. We, therefore, remit back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the issue of quantum of punishment to be imposed on the writ petitioner by taking notice of all relevant factors and taking all the angles into consideration, including those mentioned by the learned Single Judge. We also make it clear that we do not intend to express any opinion ourselves on the merits of the issue of quantum of punishment in any manner, except for leaving it to the best judgment of the Disciplinary Authority, who, we are confident, would take all materials including the nature of misconduct into consideration for passing a fresh order of punishment in accordance with law. The Disciplinary Authority shall pass an order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We also hold that if the writ petitioner is still aggrieved, he will have the liberty to file an appeal in accordance with law. We modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the aforesaid extent only.”

6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Article of Charges framed against the petitioner are as under:

“Article of Charge no. 1:

Sh. R.R. Peri, Chief Manager (Under Suspension), Regional Office, Hyderabad while posted as Senior Manager / Incumbent In-charge at Secunderabad Branch between the period 16.05.1997 to 11.05.2001 frequently recommended ad-hoc Cash Credit facilities in the account of M/s. Automotives (P) Ltd., without properly assessing the credit needs of the borrowers despite satisfactory conduct of the account.

By his above acts, Sh. R.R. Peri, Chief Manager (under suspension), Regional Office, Hyderabad did not discharge his duties with integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer. Thus he violated Regulation 3 (i) of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1982 which read with Regulation “24” of the said Regulations constitute misconduc