The main legal point established in the judgment is that courts can only interfere with disciplinary proceedings if there are violations of principles of natural justice or statutory regulations, and the punishment imposed must be shockingly disproportionate to warrant interference.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 25.04.2018 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby CWP No.8967 of 2012, titled as Smt. Bimla Devi and others vs. State Bank of India and others, having been filed by predecessor-in- interest of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), laying therein challenge to order dated 31.03.2011 passed by Reviewing Committee, thereby rejecting the revision/ appeal having been filed against order dated 26.02.2010, passed by Appellate Authority, confirming order of Disciplinary Authority, thereby imposing punishment of dismissal from service, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant Letters Patent Appeal, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid impugned judgment.

2. For having bird’s eye view, facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners i.e. Tej Ram Banger joined the services of the respondent-bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 20.07.1977 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Manager Scale-I, Middle Management Scale-II and Middle Management scale-III in the years 1988, 1996 and 2002, respectively. Vide communication dated 27.04.2007, delinquent officer, named hereinabove, came to be placed under suspension on account of his having misused/permitted misuse of NALCA and DD purchase accounts. Vide communication dated 28.09.2007, delinquent officer was informed by the bank with regard to initiation of Disciplinary proceedings against him for imposition of major penalty on the basis of following Articles of charges:-

“Charge No.1:

You negotiated local cheques of M/s R.S. Enterprises by debit to National Local Clearing Account without any sanctioned limit.

Charge No.2:

You permitted overdrawing in current and cash credit accounts of M/s R.S. Enterprises.

Charge No.3:

You sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 10.00 lacs to M/s D’N’D Enterprises where no assets were created.

You by your above acts have violated the provisions of Rule No.50(4) of State Bank of India Officer’s Service Rules.”

3. Pursuant to aforesaid communication dated 28.09.2007, delinquent officer, named hereinabove, filed written statement, thereby denying all the charges framed against him.

However, fact remains that Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the explanation rendered on record, appointed Inquiry officer to hold inquiry in the Disciplinary proceedings, so initiated against the delinquent officer. Vide inquiry report dated 08.05.2008, Inquiry Officer reported charge Nos.1 and 3 to be fully proved, whereas charge No.2 was reported to be partly proved. Vide communication dated 25.05.2008 (Annexure P-4), respondents forwarded the Inquiry report to the delinquent officer, enabling him to file response, if any, to the same. Vide representation dated 08.07.2008, delinquent officer object to the Inquiry report (Annexure P-5) on various grounds, however, Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the grounds raised in the representation, imposed penalty of dismissal under Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers Services Rules upon the delinquent officer with further directions that his suspension period be treated as such and nothing will be payable to him other than already paid.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid imposition of major penalty of dismissal, delinquent officer, preferred statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, but same was dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2010. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order dated 26.02.2010 passed by Appellate Authority, delinquent officer filed revision/appeal before the Chairman of the respondent-bank, but same was also rejected vide order dated 31.03.2011. In the aforesaid background, delinquent officer approached writ court by way of CWP, as detailed hereinabove, praying therein to set aside the order of imposition of major penalty of dismissal. Since during pendency of writ petition, delinquent officer/ origi