IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that in disciplinary proceedings, the court's jurisdiction is limited to enquiring whether there is any evidence in support of the impugned conclusion and ensuring the proportionality of the punishment imposed.

JUDGMENT :

This is one of the oldest original petitions pending before this Court, which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The folding files almost disappeared from the racks of our High Court, because, now the writ petitions are to be filed in book form and in flat style. This is a writ petition filed in a folded manner in the year 2001! Of course it had a checkered history. The writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 10.01.2012. Thereafter, it was restored only on 25.07.2023. At the time of filing the writ petition, the original petitioner was aged 51 years. Probably, he might have reached the age of 75 now. The way in which this original petition is argued by the petitioner’s lawyer would show the fighting mood of the petitioner even now. Now the original petition is going to cross a quarter century as far as the pendency is concerned. This is not the fault of this court, because the petitioner slept over the order dismissing the writ petition for non prosecution for a period of 11 years.

2. The petitioner was working as Deputy Manager at Kozhikode Main Branch of the State Bank of Travancore (hereinafter mentioned as ‘Bank’). He joined the Bank as a Cashier in April, 1970 and was promoted as Assistant Manager and then as Deputy Manager. It is the case of the petitioner that he has got an unblemished service record of 30 years at various branches of the Bank in various capacities as mentioned above. The petitioner is aggrieved by disciplinary proceedings initiated against him which resulted in his removal from service.

3. While the petitioner was working as Deputy Manager (Accounts) at the Piravom Branch of the Bank, he was served with a memo by the 3rd respondent alleging that the petitioner had committed certain serious lapses/irregularities/ malpractices in the loan accounts in his name rendering him liable for disciplinary action under Chapter X of the State Bank of Travancore (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Ext.P1 is the said memo calling upon the petitioner to submit a written statement of his defence. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply. Dissatisfied with Ext.P2 reply, the 3rd respondent ordered an inquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, a preliminary hearing was conducted. Exts.P3 and P4 are the Presenting Officer's brief and the petitioner’s defence. Based on the same, Ext.P5 inquiry report was submitted in which it is observed that some of the charges are proved. The petitioner was served with Ext.P5 and he submitted Ext.P6 reply. It is submitted that, in spite of the Ext.P6 explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent-disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of dismissal from service as per Ext.P7 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P7, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal except in scaling down the punishment to removal from service. Ext.P8 is the appeal filed by the petitioner and Ext.P9 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent-appellate authority. The petitioner again filed a review petition before the 1st respondent as evident by Ext.P10, the same was also rejected as per Ext.P11. Aggrieved by Exts.P7, P9 and P11, this original petition is filed.

4. Heard Adv.Girija K. Gopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Adv. B.Sabitha (Desom). I also heard Adv.P. Ramakrishnan who appeared for the respondent-Bank. After arguing the matter in detail, both sides filed argument notes also.

5. Adv.Girija K. Gopal submitted that the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the authority who considered the review had not considered the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that there is absolutely no loss of money to the Bank in this case. The learned counsel also submitted that the imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal or even removal from service is not justified for the reason that the disciplinary authority concluded the inquiry and impos