The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in disciplinary proceedings, stating that penalties must align with the severity of misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 09.12.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17386 of 2017. Appellants were respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the W.P.(C). Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioner and respondent No. 5, respectively in the W.P.(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by respondent No.1, who was employed as Assistant Manager in the 1^st appellant Bank, challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, which had led to the imposition of a penalty of dismissal from service. The allegation against the 1^st respondent, in brief, was that while working in Guruvayoor Branch of the Bank, a shortage of Rs.11,000/- was noted while counting the cash brought from the Bhandaram (hundi) of the temple, and in a physical check that followed, the said missing currency were discovered from the 1^st respondent. Suspension and inquiry followed, which finally led to a penalty of dismissal from service. The appeal preferred by him was of no avail. Thus, the W.P. (C) was filed seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Call for the records leading Exhibit P4, Exhibit P9, Exhibit P11 and Exhibit P13 and quash the same by issuing writ in the nature of certiorari ;

2. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding third respondent to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and treat the entire period of absence as duty for all purposes and grant all consequential benefits including back wages, due promotions, seniority etc. treating the petitioner to have continued in service uninterruptedly untrammelled by the orders of suspension and dismissal thereafter.

3. Declare that petitioner is not liable to suspended and thereafter dismissed from service and he is to be treated to have continued in service uninterruptedly and further he is eligible to all service benefits as he has continued in service untrammelled by the dismissal ;

4. Such other reliefs that the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority to consider the grant of a lesser punishment. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Bank has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.U.Balagangadharan, Advocate for the 1^st respondent and Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Standing Counsel for R2.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in allowing the petition on the ground that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against respondent No.1. The said finding had been arrived at by the learned Single Judge, overlooking the settled principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction in matters of disciplinary proceedings. It is submitted that the misconduct had been proved beyond doubt against the 1^st respondent and he had admitted the guilt in Ext.P5 letter. The contention later taken up by him that the said letter was executed by him under duress or coercion had not been raised by him hereto before. The learned Single Judge erred in brushing aside the said letter, which had pivotal importance when it came to the culpability of the 1^st respondent, as revealed in the disciplinary proceedings. The finding of the learned Single Judge that CCTV footage was not produced as requested by the 1^st respondent does not hold ground insofar as the said contention of the 1^st respondent had been duly considered by the enquiry officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority, and it had been found that the CCTV footage had been irrecoverably lost. The learned Single Judge could not have concluded so, had a proper appreciation of the preliminary investigation report da