The court confirmed that disciplinary authorities possess broad discretion in imposing penalties, which cannot be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or in breach of natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the dismissal order dated 24th March 2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Union Bank of India, and restoration of the services of the Petitioner with all benefits and full back-wages from 10th August 1999 by setting aside the suspension order dated 10th August 1999.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The Petitioner had joined the Respondent Bank in the year 1972. He appeared as an internal candidate for recruitment to the post of Officer Grade-I in the Respondent Bank in the year 1977. The Petitioner qualified the said examination based on the written test and he was promoted to Officers Grade-I in December 1977.

3. The Petitioner was selected to attain the Refresher Course for System Administrator held at Staff College, Bangalore. The Petitioner was posted as a System Administrator in the Okhla Branch of the Respondent Bank.

4. The Petitioner alleges that he discovered certain serious anomalies regarding unauthorized withdrawals by the computer assistant, one Sohan Lal from Respondent Bank and discovered many manipulations in the computer system on 6th August 1999. He informed the then Chief Manager in the Respondent Bank about the aforesaid manipulations and withdrawals from the Bank. Immediately after this, the Petitioner was suspended by the then Chief Manager of the Respondent Bank with immediate effect on 10th August 1999. The Respondent Bank then lodged a First Information Report against the Petitioner and Sohan Lal.

5. Disciplinary proceedings were then initiated against the Petitioner. The Disciplinary Authorities issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner as to why appropriate action may not be taken against him for the aforesaid lapses on his part. He was also served with an Article of Charges vide communication dated 13th March 2000. The Charges are as follows:

i) Failure to perform his duties with utmost devotion, diligence, honesty, and integrity.

ii) Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank.

iii) During acts unbecoming of a bank officer.

iv) Acting otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties.

6. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the effect that the charges against him are wrong. He refuted all the charges emphasizing the fact that the Petitioner himself reported the matter to the then Chief Manager soon after it came to his knowledge on 6th August 2000.

7. The inquiring authority, after completion of the disciplinary proceedings, had submitted the inquiry report on 5th January 2001 to the Disciplinary Authority. A show cause notice was then issued on 16th January 2001 by the Disciplinary Authority to the Petitioner to make his submissions in respect of the inquiry report.

8. The Petitioner submitted the reply of the show cause dated 16th January 2001. After considering the reply of the Petitioner to the show cause notice as well as the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority rejected the reply to the show cause notice and found that there was no error in the inquiry report. The Petitioner was dismissed from his services with immediate effect vide order dated 24th March 2001.

9. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 24th March 2001, before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28th December 2001. The Petitioner then preferred a review of the order of the Appellate Authority on 20th March 20