Punishments in disciplinary proceedings must align with the misconduct severity and adhere to principles of natural justice; dismissal without evidence constitutes disproportionate and arbitrary action.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for following reliefs:

i. For quashing of the penalty order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the Respondent No. 4 whereby and where under the Respondent No. 4 in exercise of power as disciplinary authority held out the petitioner guilty of the charges in the departmental proceeding and inflicted major penalty of dismissal.

ii. For quashing of the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Respondent No. 3 whereby the Respondent No. 3 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of penalty order dated 26.08.2016 and confirmed the order of penalty of dismissal.

iii. For quashing of order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 2 whereby and where under the respondent no. 2 disposed of the review petition dated 31.01.2017 of petitioner and confirmed the order passed by respondent no.3 in appeal preferred by the petitioner before appellate authority.

iv. For appropriate declarations that (i) the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was conducted in most unfair and prejudicial manner and as such the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated for non-compliance of principles of natural justice and fair play; (ii) the inquiry report is based on conjecture, surmises and the inquiry officer instead of submitting fact finding report based on scrutiny of evidence simply jumped on the conclusion. The inquiry report is more in the nature of opinion than report and as such the finding of the Inquiry authority is unsustainable; (iii) the unblemished service of the petitioner was totally ignored by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority while inflicting penalty, confirming the same and upholding the punishment in review in complete disregard to the law laid down by the apex court in B.E. Chaturvedi Case 1995 (VI) SCC page 749 and reiterated time and again including in P. Gunasekaran Vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (II) SCC page 610; (iv) the finding of guilt in the absence of any documentary or oral evidence is perverse and as such unsustainable.

v. For a direction to the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

vi. For any other relief or consequential reliefs to which the petitioners may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.

3. The brief facts of the case as appears from the writ application are that the petitioner joined the service in the Bank of India on 01.03.1989 as Clerk-cum-Typist, thereafter he was granted several promotions and finally he was promoted to the post of MMG-II on 22.10.2009. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred from Harmu Branch to Jaldega Branch on 28.05.2012. On 16.12.2014, a memorandum seeking explanation was issued to the petitioner regarding poor deposits in loan account to which the petitioner duly replied. Dissatisfied with the reply, on 15.10.2015, the Disciplinary Authority issued article of charges to which the petitioner submitted his written statement on 27.10.2015 and thereafter, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on 03.02.2016. Subsequently, a second show cause was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority to which the petitioner duly replied and dissatisfied with the reply, the penalty of dismissal was imposed by order dated 26.08.2016 without considering the reply of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred appeal against the dismissal order which was mechanically rejected by order dated 20.