Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts may intervene if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Laying challenge to order dated 15.06.2000 passed by Deputy General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, whereby penalty of “removal from bank service without notice” was imposed upon the petitioner and order dated 05.10.2001, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against penalty order has been dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation, the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside aforesaid impugned orders and to grant him benefits of reinstatement or all consequential benefits.

2. Petitioner in the writ petition has averred that he was appointed as Peon in the respondent-Bank and later on, he was promoted on the post of Head Peon. While he was working as Head Peon on account of his illness he could not attend his duties and as per petitioner, information in this regard was given to the higher authorities with assurance that as and when he would become fit, will join his duties.

3. It has been stated in memo of writ petition that one notice dated 13.08.1999 was issued by the Chief Manager, International Business Branch, Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur, in which it was mentioned that the petitioner was continuously and unauthorisedly absent from his duties w.e.f. 18.01.1999. Above notice further reveals that earlier vide telephonic information, the petitioner was asked to remain present on duty which was followed by two other informations dated 30.12.1998 and 07.09.1998 as well as one registered letter dated 03.08.1998 whereby explanation was sought from the petitioner with regard to his unauthorised absence, however, he did not respond to any of such informations/letters, therefore, the petitioner was called upon to join his duties in Bank within a period of thirty days, failing which he would be considered as voluntarily retired as per bipartite settlement.

4. The aforesaid notice was followed charge-sheet dated 27.10.1999 containing charges regarding willful and unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 18.01.1999. As per petitioner, on account of not being medically fit, he could not file reply to the charge-sheet, thereafter Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. As per petitioner he submitted one application dated 07.12.1999 by remaining present before the Enquiry Officer in which he mentioned that on account of continuous illness, he could not attend his duties and he will also submit medical certificates in order to prove his illness. It was also mentioned that soon after recovery from illness the petitioner would report on his duties along with medical certificates.

5. However, Enquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte in the enquiry proceedings where the management produced its witnesses and also exhibited documents in order to prove willful and unauthorised absence of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer prepared its report dated 15.03.2000 and same was also served upon the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 14.03.2000. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority sent one notice dated 10.06.2000 mentioning therein that the charges of willful absence and insubordination as well as working against the interest of Bank have been found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. After considering enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority proposed penalty of removal from Bank service without notice and the petitioner was asked to appear for personal hearing on the question of quantum of punishment. The petitioner appeared for personal hearing before the Disciplinary Authority on 15.06.2000.

On 15.06.2000 itself the Disciplinary Authority passed order of penalty, whereby penalty of removal from bank service without notice was imposed upon the petitioner. It reveals from the penalty order itself that during personal hearing, the petitioner prayed that on account of domestic circumstance he was unable to continue in bank services and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken and ins