The court held that disciplinary authority's punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct, and failure to adhere to natural justice principles can warrant judicial intervention.

Order :

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India being aggrieved of the order dated 27.07.2022 (Annex.1), whereby pursuant to the departmental inquiry conducted against him, the disciplinary authority of the respondent bank has awarded him punishment of 'Compulsory Retirement' and the order dated 14.11.2022 (Annex.2), whereby the appellate authority has rejected the departmental appeal preferred by him against the aforesaid order.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Officer Scale-I (junior Management Grade Scale-I) in the respondent bank vide appointment order dated 14.12.2013. After completion of probation period, he was given the charge of Branch Manager. While the petitioner was working at the Fatehgrah Branch of the respondent bank, a show cause notice (Annex.9) was served upon him, wherein it was alleged that he has violated the bank's circulars by sanctioning and disbursing loans to 5 farmers under KCC and ATL loan scheme beyond the limit for which he was authorized and thus, he wrongly used his discretionary powers. It was further alleged that the BMDP of these loans was not got noted to RBO office. Another allegation was that he falsely made claim of TA bills and got the bills cleared and he also cleared TA bills of his subordinate Chandra Prakash, which was not within his powers. Being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent bank proceeded to hold disciplinary inquiry against him in respect of the allegations contained in the show cause notice and accordingly, memorandum of charge-sheet dated 04.07.2020 alongwith article of charges was issued to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was put to face the charges under the Regulation 39(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees Service Regulations - 2010 (for short, 'the Regulations of 2010'). In the charge-sheet, total 5 charges were levelled against the petitioner, which are as follows:-

nks"kkjksi.k fooj.k%&

nks"kkjksi.k la[;k ,d&

ifji= la[;k@dk-iz-iz-@106@2014&15 fnukad 30-10-2014 ds vuqlkj 'kk[kk izca/kd] Ldsy&1 dks iznRr foosdkf/kdkjksa dk mYya?ku dj dslhlh [kkrk la[;k 83038550272] 83037429178] 83037066064] 83036283376 ,oa 83037356946 esa izFke o"kZ gsrq :i;s 3 yk[k ls vf/kd dslhlh _.k lhek Lohd`r@forfjr dh xbZ

nks"kkjksi.k la[;k nks&
fuEukafdr _.k [kkrksa dh ch,eMhih {ks=h; dk;kZy; dks izsf"kr rks dh xbZ] ijUrq {ks=h; dk;kZy; ls vuqlj.k dj uksVsM ugha djok;h x;h gS tks ifji= la[;k@vfxze@123@2013&14 fnukad 24-01-2014 o ifji= la[;k@45@fuvads&1@2016&17 fnukad 28-01-2016 ds funsZ'kksa dh Li"V vogsyuk gSA %&

83038550272] 83037429178] 83037066064] 83036283376] 83037356946] 83038553193] 83037430296

nks"kkjksi.k la[;k rhu%&

Jh jksfcu 'kkg us vius Lo;a dk ekg fnlacj] 2017 ds eksckbZy [kpZ dk iquZHkj.k jkf'k : 200@& fcuk fcy ds gh Hkqxrku ikfjr dj [kkrk la[;k 83007786747 esa fnukad 01-01-2018 dks tek varfjr dj fn;k x;kA

nks"kkjksi.k la[;k pkj& fnukad 03-03-2017] 21-03-2017] 22-03-2017 ,oa 23-03-2017 dh ;k=kvksa dk ;k=k HkRrk fcy fnukad 03-07-2017 jkf'k : 1500@& {ks=h; O;olk; dk;kZy; chdkusj ls Lohd`r fd;s fcuk gh dfe;ka n'kkZdj okil ykSVk fn;k x;k FkkA Jh jksfcu 'kkg us vius in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, l{ke izkf/kdkjh dh Lohd`fr ds fcuk gh fnukad 18-07-2017 dks mDr ;k=k HkRrk fcy dk Hkqxrku jkf'k :i;s 2250@& Lo;a ds [kkrk la[;k 83007786747 esa tek vUrfjr dj cSad fu/kh dk futh fgr esa nq:i;ksx dj xaHkhj foRrh; vfu;ferrk dh x;h gSaA