IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary penalties must be substantiated by evidence and proportionate to the nature of the charges; trivial charges should not lead to severe penalties.

JUDGMENT :

(SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.) :

The instant petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority of the respondent-State Bank of India whereby the penalty of “Reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year, with further directions that the officer will not earn increments to pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay” has been imposed. The initial penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority on 25.03.2013 was slightly modified by the Appellate Authority vide the aforesaid order dated 30.08.2013. The challenge is based on the aspect that there was no substantial charge against the petitioner and there was no evidence at all to implicate him with the charges.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner, at that point of time, was serving as the Assistant Manager of the respondent-Bank and was posted at the SBI, Titabor Branch. While in service, a show cause notice was issued to him on 21.06.2012 with 4 nos. of charges. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice and being unsatisfied, an inquiry was initiated. Amongst the 4 charges, the Inquiry Officer came to a finding that Charge Nos. 1 and 2 were not proved and Charge Nos. 3 and 4 were proved. The disciplinary authority had, however, disagreed with the findings in Charge Nos. 1 and 2 and had accordingly, issued a notice to the petitioner on 23.01.2013. The same was replied to by the petitioner whereby he had stated that there was no reason to disagree with the findings so far as the Charge Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. It was also stated that the findings of the Inquiry Officer so far as the Charge Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, are not based on any evidence on records. Nonetheless, vide initial order of penalty dated 25.03.2013, the disciplinary authority had imposed the penalty of “Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year, with further directions that the officer will not earn increments to pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay” in terms of Rule No. 67 (f) of SBIOSR.

3. The aforesaid order was put to challenge in a departmental appeal and the Appellate Authority vide the order dated 30.08.2013 had, however, interfered with the penalty and had modified the same in the manner indicated above. The Appellate Authority, however, did not exonerate the petitioner. The petitioner had thereafter submitted a review which, however, was rejected vide an order dated 19.07.2014. It is the legality and correctness of the order of imposition of penalty which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition, as indicated above.

4. I have heard Shri P Bhowmick, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri L Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent-SBI, who has also produced the records of the disciplinary proceeding in two volumes.

5. Shri Bhowmick, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there are four numbers of charges, the Charge Nos. 2 and 4 are related to the Charge Nos. 1 and 3. It is submitted that the first charge is with regard to non-verification of a mobile number of a customer who had availed the facility of Mobile Banking service. He has submitted that admittedly, one Generator Operator involved with the Branch was given the charge of facilitating the customers to avail the said facility of Mobile Banking service and at that time, there was no requirement to have the same mobile number in the application form. In any case, it is the version of the petitioner that he neither had the expertise nor was trained to verify the mobile number and such verification was entrusted to another person who was trained for that purpose. He, acco