The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in departmental proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 and the importance of justifying the penalty imposed.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the termination of service dated 13.7.2007 passed by respondent No. 2- Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by respondent No. 3- Appellate Authority in Appeal by order dated 5.2.2008, and prayed, inter alia, that:-

"33(a) Your Lordships be pleased to admit this petition.

(b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order holding that the order of the termination of service Dt.13-07-2007 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and confirmed by the respondent No. 3 in appeal by order Dt.05-02-2008 are bad in law, unconstitutional, illegal and those be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits.

(c) Your Lordships be pleased to order that the operation and implementation of the order of the termination of service Dt.13-07-2007 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and confirmed by the respondent No. 3 in appeal by order Dt.05-02-2008 be suspended pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition and the petitioner be taken back on service.

(d) Your Lordships be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Cashier in the Petlad Branch of the State Bank of India. In the year 1993, for some transactions, the department had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 24.12.1993. The said notice was replied by the petitioner and thereafter, the respondent No.2 decided to proceed with the inquiry. After the inquiry, the respondent No.2 - Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 10.4.2002 dismissing the petitioner from service, without notice as per (6)(a) of annexure-II to memorandum of settlement on Disciplinary action procedure for workmen pertaining to Bipartite Settlement. The said order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of an Appeal before respondent No.3 and the said Appeal came to be rejected by respondent No.3 on 5.2.2008.

2.2 In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has preferred present petition and prayed for above mentioned relief.

3. I have heard Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav Desai, learned Counsel for the respondents.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :

4. Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is gross delay of 10 years in initiation of inquiry proceedings by the respondents and therefore, great prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is violation of principles of natural justice, since the relevant token book and the transfer book were not produced, at the time of inquiry and therefore, the petitioner has no occasion to look into the same and raise his defence based upon such token book and the transfer book.

4.1 Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even the respondent-bank itself has not confirmed about the fact that the offence pertains to minor penalty or major penalty however, the respondent bank has imposed a major penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner.

4.2 In view of the above submissions, Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court to allow present petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority.

4.3 Mr. Kirtidev Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of this Court in case of K.B. Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat reported in GCD 2001 4 2630 and A.S. Sindhi vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2000 (3) G.L.H. 563 mainly on the ground of delay in initiation of departmental inquiry proceedings and urges before the Court that in view of the said deci