The punishment imposed must be proportionate and not unduly harsh, and the failure to examine vital witnesses can vitiate the departmental proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the penalty order dated 31.03.2020 (Annexure-12), passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby he has been imposed major penalty of “Removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment”. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure-15), passed by the respondent no. 2 as also the Review Order dated 29.03.2021 (Annexure-16) passed by the respondent no.1. Petitioner has further prayed for consequential benefits.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. According to the petitioner, after his selection, he joined the service in Canara Bank on 22.04.1996 as a Clerk and in view of his performance, was granted promotion to Junior Management Grade-I in May, 2009. He was further granted promotion to Junior Management Grade-II in May, 2014. Petitioner worked with utmost devotion and sincerity and there was no complaint against him from any quarter. Petitioner was relieved from the post of Branch Incharge, Pithoria Branch on 04.10.2018 and he was transferred and posted as a Manager at MIPD Section, Ranchi Regional Office, Ranchi Circle. After his transfer, petitioner handed over entire records of Pithoria Branch of the Bank to his successor Manish Kumar Singh. On 09.11.2018, the allegations of taking bribe in granting KCC/ KMCC loans at Pithoria Branch had been made and petitioner was asked for explanation which was duly replied by him on 22.11.2018.

4. On 16.08.2019, the Disciplinary Authority issued Article of Charges, list of documents, list of witnesses, statement of allegations, which inter-alia relates to alleged lapses on part of the petitioner by pressurizing the AEO (Agriculture Extension Officer) of the Branch to do those KCC/ KMCC loan proposals which were rooted through the middleman by taking bribe from the loanee/customers for sanctioning KCC/KMCC loan proposals, for which video clip shows that he was accepting bribe from the middleman. The said memorandum dated 16.08.2019 was duly replied by the petitioner vide his written statement dated 23.08.2019 clearly refuting the charges levelled against him. It was also stated that he was unaware about any audio/video clip.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that on 29.08.2019, the Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Ranchi issued letter appointing Sri Kabindra Kumar Sahu, Divisional Manager, Circle Office, Ranchi as Inquiry Authority and Mrs. Rekha Sharma, Manager, Ormanjhi Branch, Ranchi Circle as Presenting Officer. On 03.09.2019, the preliminary inquiry was made. Petitioner denied all the charges and thereafter regular inquiry was fixed on 13.09.2019 and documents were placed by the presenting officer. After completion of inquiry, the report was submitted vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition and thereafter show-cause was asked by the disciplinary authority on 21.03.2020. Petitioner filed his representation dated 30.03.2020 pointing out the erroneous and cryptic finding of the inquiry authority and highlighted his unblemished service record. However, the disciplinary authority, vide his order dated 31.03.2020 imposed the penalty of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment as envisaged under regulation 4(i) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, he preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same was rejected vide order dated 30.12.2020 which was subject matter of challenge before Review Appeal. However, the said Review Petition was also rejected vide order dated 29.03.2021. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

7. Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the action of the respond