IMPORTANT POINT
The disciplinary authority must independently assess penalties without undue influence from external advice, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:-

Factual Matrix of the case:

1. A challenge has been made by the petitioner to the impugned orders dated 05.12.2017 as well as dated 30.05.2018 by which punishment order of ‘Removal from Service’ has been passed by the respondents and his appeal against the said order has been rejected respectively.

Submissions by counsel for the petitioner:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a departmental charge-sheet with four charges was served upon the petitioner along with a list of witnesses, wherein only one witness was kept by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that before commencement of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer permitted the respondents to adduce the additional evidence. Learned counsel submits that the Inquiry Officer was appointed on 21.10.2016 and vide communication dated 24.10.2016, only one day time was granted to the petitioner to appoint his Defence Representative. Learned counsel submits that though the aforesaid time was extended, some more time ought to have been granted to the petitioner for engaging the Defence Representative and for adducing documents in his defence. Learned counsel submits that when the cross-examination of the witnesses was conducted during the course of inquiry, there was no incriminatory statement made by any of the respondent-Bank witnesses with regard to charges levelled against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that after completion of inquiry, 10 days time was granted to the petitioner as well as to the respondent-Bank for submitting their written submissions. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner could not submit the defence arguments within the above stipulated time due to pre-engagement of his Defence Representative in other matters of the bank. Hence, at the request of the petitioner, further time was granted and he submitted his written submissions on 16.04.2017. Prior to filing of the written submissions, the Inquiry Report was prepared a day before i.e. 15.04.2017. Learned counsel submits that as per the provisions contained under the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officer’s) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “SBBJOSR, 1979”), the Inquiry Officer was supposed to act in accordance with the mandate, contained under Regulation 16 but the same was not followed. Hence, under these circumstances, the entire inquiry stood vitiated. Learned counsel submits that before commencement of the inquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension and his subsistence allowance was stopped by the respondents with effect from 23.03.2016 and the same was not paid to the petitioner till 27.03.2017. Learned counsel submits that the subsistence allowance of the petitioner was withheld by the respondents for a period of about one year without any justified reason. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid exercise was undertaken by the respondents to starve the petitioner, so that he could not pursue his matter before the Inquiry Officer in a proper manner. Learned counsel submits that the entire proceedings were conducted by the respondents in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that after completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report whereby the petitioner was found guilty in three out of four charges and the matter was placed before the Disciplinary Authority for passing appropriate orders. Learned counsel submits that after considering the entire Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority took a decision of imposing the penalty of ‘Reduction to a lower scale in the time scale of pay by one stage