Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inquiry report, order passed by respondent No.1 and the order passed by respondent No.2, the present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers:-

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside inquiry report dated 27.09.2005 (at ANNEXURE – F) as well as order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No.1 herein (at ANNEXURE – G) and order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2 herein (at ANNEXURE-I) and further be pleased to direct the respondent – Bank to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with all consequential benefits;

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No.1 herein (at ANNEXURE – G) and order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2 herein (at ANNEXURE - I) and further be pleased to direct the respondent – Bank to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with all consequential benefits;

(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

2. Brief facts of the present case is that the petitioner was serving as Assistant with the respondent – Bank at Bhachau Branch, Kachchh with utmost honesty and sincerity and, thereafter, he was transferred to Amreli Branch. During his service tenure at Bhachau Branch, a number of victims of the earthquake, which was occurred in January 2001 at Kachchh), had opened their Savings Bank Accounts at Bhachau Branch, District: Kachchh in order to receive the Government extended relief for reconstruction of their houses and disbursement of initial installments was made by Bhachau Branch at the concerned villages on 11.08.2003, 12.08.2002 and 23.08.2002 and final disbursement was released on 02.09.2003 at the branch itself.

2.1 That upon the reports of recovery of levy from constituents by the employees of the bank published in daily newspapers “Kachchh Mitra” and “Gujarat Samachar”, the matter got probed into by the Bank and departmental actions were initiated against the number of employees. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is innocent person and has no role to play whatsoever in the aforesaid incident.

2.2 The petitioner was asked to receive a charge-sheet alleging that he had committed serious misconducts when he was working as Assistant at Bhachau Branch while making payments to the beneficiaries and certain irregularities were observed in his Leave Fare Concession. The representative of the petitioner gave defence statement and petitioner had given reply to the charge-sheet.

2.3 The departmental inquiry was initiated and pursuant to which the inquiry officer had submitted his report and upon inquiry report, the disciplinary authority – respondent No.1 had terminated / dismissed the petitioner from the service with superannuation benefits. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order passed by respondent No.1 and the appeal came to be dismissed by respondent No.2 and hence, the present petition.

3. Heard Mr.Shakti Jadeja, learned counsel for Mr.S. P. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms.Dharmishta Raval, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

4. Mr.Jadeja, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to law and evidence on record. He has submitted that the petitioner was serving as Assistant with respondent – Bank and he had not committed any misconducts as alleged in the charge-sheet. According to Mr.Jadeja, lea