IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review in disciplinary actions is not an appeal; it ensures fairness and legality without substituting the authority's findings unless they are grossly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

C. KUMARAPPAN, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 22.10.2019 in WP No. 2607 of 2013 and consequently, direct the respondent Bank to pay all the arrears of salary from the date of dismissal till the date when the appellant attained the age of superannuation, pay all the terminal benefits such as Gratuity, Leave Salary, arrears of pension from the date o superannuation till the date of death, award costs.

1. The writ petitioner and the respondents before the Writ Court are arrayed as the appellant and the respondents herein.

2. The brief facts which give rise to the instant writ appeal is that, the petitioner was Chief Manager in Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch. While he was in service as a Chief Manager, he has caused a monetary loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.30,30,303/- [Rupees Thirty Lakhs Thirty Thousand Three Hundred and Three only]. Such financial loss has occurred to the Bank due to the deliberate and questionable conduct of the petitioner. Thus, he was charged on the ground that he failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank, and also on the ground that he failed to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence. The above conduct comes within the ambit of misconduct under the “Indian Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) (Amendment) Regulations, 1985” [hereinafter shall be referred to as “said Regulations” for the sake of convenience].

3. Therefore, the respondents-Bank initiated enquiry. In the enquiry, all the charges have been proved against the writ petitioner, and it was found that the petitioner was guilty of all charges. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority after going through the Enquiry Report and also from the fact that during enquiry, the petitioner has pleaded guilty against the charges, have imposed a capital punishment of dismissal against the petitioner under Section 4(h) of the said Regulations. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, on considering the appeal made by the petitioner vide order dated 27.05.1996 confirmed the order of dismissal imposed by the Diciplinary Authority. It appears that, not satisfying with the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred a Review Application, and such Review Application was also came to be rejected on 14.10.2000.

4. While so, the petitioner in his first round of litigation in WP No. 38378 of 2002 inter alia contended that the Appellate Authority, as well as the Review Authority has not considered the Regulations of the Bank. Thus, in the first round of litigation, the writ Court in WP No. 38378 of 2002 vide order dated 28.02.2012 has remitted back the matter to the Appellate Authority, with a liberty to the petitioner to put forth his additional grounds before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority once again considered the appeal, and vide order dated 04.08.2012 again dismissed the appeal by confirming the capital punishment of dismissal imposed against this petitioner. Against which, the impugned writ petition has been filed.

5. The Writ Court after having considered the submission of either side, has arrived at a conclusion that the Appellate Authority has exercised his power with due diligence, and has also held that, while exercising the power of judicial review, it is imperative upon the Writ Court to maintain restraint, and also found that there are no perversity in the order of the Appellate Authority and thereby, confirmed the order of dismissal from service against the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved with the said order passed in the writ petition, the petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant in his usual dexterity would vehemently contend that the petitioner, being the Chief Manager, and having 40 years of unblemished service in the Bank had no occasion to commit any misconduct. Whatever had ha