IMPORTANT POINT
The limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and the need for fairness in treatment throughout the proceedings.

ORDER :

Munnuri Laxman, J.

1. The present intra-court appeal is filed against the order dated 18.01.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11193/2020, whereunder the writ petition filed by the present appellant seeking quashment of the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 15.02.2020 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.09.2020, was dismissed. By such impugned orders the appellant was found guilty for the two-counts of charges by the Disciplinary Authority and ordered to be removed from the service, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

2. The background of the facts leading to the present proceedings are that the appellant while working as a Branch Manager of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Branch Manpur in District Sirohi allegedly involved in financial embezzlement and violation of procedural requirement in disbursement of the benefits under the Social Security Schemes of the Government. The first count of charge was that the appellant diverted Rs.7,700/- and Rs.10,000/- from inoperative accounts of the beneficiaries of Social Security Schemes i.e. Accident Claims/Pension Schemes to his personal account on 14.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 respectively. Subsequently, Rs.10,000/- was re-credited on 31.10.2018 and Rs.7,700/- was re-credited on 31.12.2018. The second count of charge was that the appellant disbursed the pension of 5 dead persons to their nominees in violation of procedural requirement for disbursement of such amounts of deceased under the Social Security Scheme.

3. Initially, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 19.12.2018 and a reply was submitted on 04.01.2019 whereunder the plea of the appellant was that the amounts were credited to his account erroneously and not intentionally. A preliminary enquiry was ordered and thereafter, a charge was framed under the memorandum of chargesheet dated 01.04.2019 for the above two counts of charges. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and during the enquiry, the Bank has examined three witnesses and relied upon 28 documents. During the course of enquiry, the appellant made admission of the two counts of charges and basing on such admissions and evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer found both the counts of charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and sought comments on the eqnuiry report for the proposed punishment of dismissal. The appellant offered his comments on the enquiry report as well as the proposed punishment. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the findings of the enquiry report and taking into account the background of the evidence, imposed the punishment of removal of the appellant from service.

4. The appellant aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. After scrutinizing the evidence on record and taking into account the grounds set up by the appellant, the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. That is why the writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge. The writ court dis-inclined to disturb the findings on charge and punishment; and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant.

5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the grounds he has raised assailing the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority in the background of the procedural lapses and violation of principles of natural justice. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority had not properly given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Management/Bank and also not extended the help of representative to represent his case. The appellant being new to the sy