The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was not disproportionate to the charges proved, and the disciplinary proceedings were valid.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the files of the respondents 3 and 2 in respect of the impugned proceedings bearing ZO/HRD/DAD/06-07/439 dated 17.04.2006 of the third respondent imposing on the petitioner the punishment of recovery of 1/3rd pension per mensum for three years and impugned proceedings of the second respondent bearing ZO/HRS/DAD/06-07/3813 dated 15.02.2007 confirming the order of the third respondent on appeal and quash the same and to award costs.)

1. The relief sought in this writ petition is to call for the records from the files of the respondents 3 and 2 in respect of the impugned proceedings bearing ZO/HRD/DAD/06-07/439 dated 17.04.2006 of the third respondent imposing on the petitioner the punishment of recovery of 1/3rd pension per mensum for three years and impugned proceedings of the second respondent bearing ZO/HRS/DAD/06-07/3813 dated 15.02.2007 confirming the order of the third respondent on appeal and quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Chennai Main Branch, Chennai from 24.09.1999 to 26.05.2001, he opted for Voluntary Retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme offered to the Staff and as per which, he was relieved from the service of respondent Bank on 26.05.2001. After the petitioner had retired from service, the respondent Bank vide order in ZO/PRS/DAD/2004-05/2879 dated 09.12.2004, informing him that they has decided to invoke the Regulations under Chapter IX of Central Bank of India (Employee's) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI(E)P Regulations, 1995') and proceed with the departmental action in terms of the Central Bank of India Officers Employee's (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'CBIOE (C) Regulations, 1976') and Central Bank of India Officers Employee's (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'CBIOE (D&A) Regulations, 1976'). Thereafter, the third respondent has issued a Charge Memo bearing ZO:PRS:DAD:2004-05: 3170 dated 07.01.2005, to the petitioner, alleging the following three charges:

Charge I – refers to the Declining of enhancement proposal by Zonal Office.

Charge II (a) – refers to Additional Collateral Security for Rs.50 Lakhs not obtained.

Charge II (b) – Fresh Recital of the existing EM not got done and Search in the Sub-Registrar Office not done.

Charge III – refers to Temporary Overdraft allowed to a tune of Rs.10 Lakhs on 30.04.2001.

3. To inquire the above charges, a department inquiry was commenced on 18.04.2005 and concluded on 14.06.2005. During the said inquiry, on the side of the respondent Bank, 48 documents were submitted and one Mr.P.Jagannathan was examined as witness and on the side of the petitioner, some documents were produced but no one was examined as witness.

4. The inquiry report was submitted on 09.07.2005. The Inquiring Authority has clearly stated in the inquiry report that except Charge 2(b), all other Charges which were framed against the petitioner have been proved. Against such findings of the Inquiring Authority, on 26.07.2005, the petitioner has submitted his explanation before the third respondent/Disciplinary Authority, requesting to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

5. While so, on the basis of the findings of Inquiring Authority, the third respondent had issued a letter No.ZO:HRD:DAD/06-07/441 dated 04.05.2006 with Administrative Order No.ZO/HRD/DAD/06-07/440 dated 17.04.2006 to the petitioner, in and by which, imposing a punishment of 'withdrawal of pension at the rate of 1/3rd of the pension per mensum for a period of three years' in terms of Regulation 48 of CBI(E)P Regulations, 1995, on the petitioner. Thereafter, Chennai Main Branch vide communication No.CHEN:PEN:2006:07 dated 07.10.2006, informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.26,1