ORDER :

(Ananda Sen, J.)

1. This intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellant-Bank, challenging the order dated 11.08.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1985 of 2015, whereby, the punishment order as well as the appellate order in the departmental proceeding has been set aside by the learned Single Judge.

2. The appellant, herein, is the Bank of India (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Bank’), who is respondent before the learned Single Judge. The Original writ petitioner was working as a staff Clerk-cum-Computer Terminal Operator (CTO) under the appellant-Bank. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Chargesheet dated 15.11.2013 was issued against him under two heads, which are as follows:-

Charge No.I

You opened 74 KCC loan accounts in the system, as mentioned hereinbelow, which were sanctioned by Shri C.S.Biswas and S.K.Sardar respectively during their tenure as 2nd line officials in the Branch. You were aware that neither Shri Biswas nor Shri Sardar were having any authority to sanction these loan accounts, inasmuch as only the Branch Manager was having the delegated power to sanction such loans, still you opened the loan accounts in the system.

Charge No.II

You opened KCC loan a/c No.453032110000321 of one Shri Ajay Bhakat in the system on 10.06.2010, without ensuring that the proposal was sanctioned by the competent authority. Subsequently, the account was found to be a fictitious one.

3. Departmental proceeding was initiated by appointing the Enquiry Officer. Before the Enquiry Officer, several documents were exhibited. The oral evidence was also led. The enquiry Officer, analyzing the evidences adduced in the enquiry proceeding, concluded that both the charges levelled against the delinquent employee were found to be proved. Thereafter, the enquiry report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority.

4. The Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice dated 10.9.2014. Considering the reply of the second show cause notice and also the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order on 10.10.2014, dismissing the delinquent employee from service in terms of 6(a) of the Bipartite Settlement. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 4.4.2015 also dismissed the appeal, which led to filing of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1985 of 2015. The said writ petition was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.8.2021 by setting aside the order dated 10.10.2014 by which, the writ petitioner was dismissed from service, and the appellate order dated 4.4.2015, holding that the quantum of punishment is highly excessive and does not commensurate with the charge. The learned Single Judge has held that though the petitioner has already superannuated yet the Disciplinary Authority should decide the quantum of punishment afresh. Thus the matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority.

5. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the punishment and the appellate order have been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority to re-consider the quantum of punishment, the Bank has filed this intra-Court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank and the respondent and have perused the writ petition and the memo of appeal along with documents, filed therein.

7. Mr. A.Allam, learned senior counsel for the appellant argues that in the disciplinary proceeding, the scope of interference is very limited and the writ Court cannot sit in an appeal over the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. He further argues that once the charge is held to be proved, the quantum of punishment is the prerogative of the employer which cannot be interfered with. In the instant case, the punishment “dismissal without notice” cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate, as Charge No. (ii), which relates t