JUDGMENT

Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.04.2025 passed in W.P.(L) No. 3018 of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed and the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal no. 2, Dhanbad in Reference case no. 12 of 2006 has been affirmed.

2. The factual background of the case is that the respondent no. 1 namely Awinash Kumar Sinha while working as Clerk-cum-Cashier at Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Jamua Branch, Giridih (the erstwhile Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank) from 08.03.1995 to 07.06.1996, had committed lapses, irregularities and misconduct. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent no. 1 and he was served a chargesheet dated 09.05.1997 issued under the signature of Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority whereby five charges were framed against him and he was asked to submit his defence within 15 days.

3. The respondent no. 1 submitted his explanation which was found unsatisfactory and an enquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charges framed against him.

4. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report observing that out of five charges framed against the respondent no. 1, charge nos. 1, 2 and 5 were fully proved, Charge No. 3 was partially proved and Charge No. 4 was not proved.

5. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the respondent no. 1 on 01.09.2001 intending to impose punishment which was replied by him accepting his mistake with respect to all the charges levelled against him except charge no.1.

6. The respondent no. 1 also requested the disciplinary authority to take sympathetic view against him. The Chairman-cum- Disciplinary Authority finally awarded the punishment to the respondent no. 1 vide order as contained in letter no. HO:IR:01- 02/890 dated 15.10.2001 degrading him to 10 lower stages in his incremental scale w.e.f. the date of the said order.

7. The respondent no. 1 filed appeal before the Board Members in the capacity of Appellate Authority who dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 15.04.2002 which was issued under the signature of Chairman of the Board.

8. Thereafter, the General Secretary of the Bank Staff Association raised industrial dispute which was subsequently referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad vide Reference Case No.12 of 2006.

9. The learned Tribunal set aside the order of punishment of the respondent no. 1 vide award dated 19.01.2012 observing that the said punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the charges framed against him. The appellant thereafter filed writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 3018 of 2012 which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.04.2025 affirming the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad. Hence, the present L.P.A.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the gravity of misconduct committed by the respondent no. 1 who being an employee of the appellant had knowingly and deliberately sponsored the cause of fictitious person namely Gokul Rana in obtaining loan and on being asked, he failed to produce any chit of paper to show the genuineness of the said person.

11. It is also submitted that both the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have committed error in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

12. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the respondent no. 1 had admitted his guilt. The respondent no. 1 is a bank employee who failed to execute his assigned work with absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty while dealing with public money and as such, the punishment imposed upon him was proper.

13. It is also argued that the present case was beyond the scope of judicial review as the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate and hence, the judgment passed by the learned Si