Point of Law: Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, High Court shall not reappreciate evidence and interfere with conclusions of inquiry and cannot go into adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence and interfere with legal evidence on which findings can be based and correct error of fact however grave it may appear to be, and High Court cannot go into proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vishwas K. Shah, learned advocate for Ms. Bhavna V. Shah, learned advocate for appellants and Mr. Darshan M. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondents.

2. ADMIT. Mr. Darshan M. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondents waive service of notice of admission.

3. By consent of the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing.

4. The parties were heard at length. While keeping the matter for orders on 20.07.2021, this Court passed the following order:

“1. Heard Mr. Vishwas K. Shah, learned advocate for Ms. Bhavna V. Shah, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Darshan M. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondents on advance copy.

2. Mr. Vishwas K. Shah, learned advocate for the appellants has candidly submitted that he does not challenge the aspect whether a person after superannuation can be subjected to major punishment or not. Mr. Shah further contended that he challenged the punishment imposed and proportionality of the same.

3. No other or further submissions, averments, grounds and/or contentions are made by Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the appellants.

4. We have extenso heard Mr. Vishwas K. Shah, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Darshan M. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondents. For orders.”

5. Since, Mr. Shah, learned advocate confined his argument only in respect of punishment imposed and proportionality of the same, the parties were heard only on that aspect.

6. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act are stated as under:

6.1. The present appellant / original petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 11869 of 2005, whereby, he had challenged the order dated 29.07.2003 passed by the Deputy General Manager, by which appellant was removed from the services. Appellant herein also challenged the order dated 27.01.2005 passed by the Executive Director, Bank of Baroda, whereby, the appeal preferred by appellant against the order of removal also came to be rejected. In the Special Civil Application, petitioner also prayed for releasing the amount of provisional pension and /or compassionate pension.

6.2. The present appellant – original petitioner was initially appointed on 04.04.1966 as a Junior Clerk and later on, promoted to the post of Officer w.e.f. 01.06.1970. Thereafter, from time to time, he was promoted and lastly, he was promoted to the post of Senior Branch Manager at Navyug College Branch, Surat. In the meantime, appellant was transferred at Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh as Senior Manager and was put under suspension from 28.08.1998 till 31.12.2001. On attaining the age of 60 years, appellant retired as Senior Branch Manager after the office hours on 31.12.2001. After appellant retired on attaining the age of superannuation, pending the departmental inquiry, the respondent Bank also sanctioned and paid provisional pension to him vide letter dated 21.03.2002.

6.3. After appellant’s retirement, the respondent served appellant with an order of removal with retrospective effect vide order dated 29.07.2003, against which appellant preferred a Departmental Appeal, but the said Appeal was also rejected and the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority removing appellant from service vide order dated 27.01.2005.

6.4. Since at the time of retirement of appellant, the departmental inquiry was pending against appellant, the provisional pension of appellant was sanctioned as per Regulation 9 of the Bank of Baroda (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 1995 and on account of order of removal, appellant’s provisional pension was stopped and recovery was ordered, vide letter dated 07.01.2005, appellant was informed by the Bank that in view of removal of appellant from the service vide order dated 29.07.2003, he was not entitled for any pension. Therefore, appellant challenged the order of removal which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority by filing Special