The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited, and the Court will not interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority unless there is a violation of natural justice or the findings are based on no evidence.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

C.M. No. 19837/2023 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

LPA 368/2023

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1271/2014, the Appellant herein has filed the instant LPA with the following prayers:

"1. Set aside the impugned Judgement dated 20.03.2023, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in case titled Debasis Mohapatra v. Canara Bank & Ors. (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) bearing W.P.(C) No.1271 of 2014.

ii. Issue order or direction quashing of the order dtd. 26.11.2013 passed by the Reviewing Authority, The order dtd. 08.02.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority and, the penalty order dtd. 27.07.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

iii. Exonerate the Appellant and direct the Respondents to release his entire set of back wages along-with all the financial and service benefits that the Appellant was/would have been entitled to had he continued in service."

2. The facts of the case reveal that between 13.02.2009 and 27.11.2009, the Appellant was posted as Assistant General Manager with the Syndicate Bank, East Patel Nagar, Delhi. By a notification dated 04.03.2020, the Syndicate Bank has been amalgamated into Canara Bank. The allegation against the Appellant is that he sanctioned/released credit facility in the form of Advance Against Bills for Collection (AABC) amounting to Rs.1,30,00,000/- to one M/s Malick Gold House Pvt. Ltd., which was allegedly granted in violation of the Bank's guidelines and which had exposed the Bank to a loss to the tune of Rs.1,47,30,000/-.

3. An Inquiry Officer was appointed and the inquiry was conducted in the matter. The Inquiry Officer found the Appellant to be guilty of the charges levelled against him and submitted the Inquiry Report to the Disciplinary Authority. A copy of the Inquiry Report was furnished to the Appellant herein and the Appellant had also submitted a representation dated 09.05.2021 to the Inquiry Authority.

4. The Disciplinary Authority vide Order dated 27.07.2011 dismissed the Appellant from service with immediate effect. Against the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide Order dated 08.02.2013 set aside the order of dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, the Appellate Authority imposed penalty of compulsory retirement on the Appellant.

5. The Appellant filed an application before the Reviewing Authority for review of the Order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority. The Reviewing Authority vide Order dated 26.11.2013 confirmed the order passed by of the Appellate Authority.

6. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No. 1271/2014, challenging the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the Reviewing Authority, order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority and order dated 27.07.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, seeking for exoneration and for a direction of reinstatement in service along with all consequential benefits.

7. The learned Single Judge after going through the material on record observed that the order passed by the Appellate Authority imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the Appellant is commensurate with the charges established against the Appellant and does not require any interference. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court in the present LPA.

8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits charges against the Appellant and one Gurudev Singh are identical. It is stated that Gurudev Singh, who was posted as Senior Manager and is a specifically trained officer for foreign exchange business, and was also involved in the same transaction, and who according to the Appellant, was the official to guide and advise the Appellant herein for sanctioning such transactions. It is contended that Mr. Gurudev Singh also faced inquiry on similar charges and he has been given a minor punishment of reduction of one