Judicial review of disciplinary actions emphasizes fairness of the inquiry and proportionality of punishment, allowing modification from removal to compulsory retirement when circumstances warrant.

ORDER :

1. Assailing the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority and affirmed by the court below, imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner, the present petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working in the 2^nd respondent bank as Note-Stitching Machine Operator in the cash department While being so employed, on 3.5.2002, the cashier reported the missing of two pieces of one hundred rupee notes from a fresh denomination note packet and, thereafter, claimed that two one hundred rupee notes, each from two packets were missing from a fresh denomination note packet. It is further averred that the cashier reported the missing of cash to the higher officials and the higher officials came to the spot and searched the petitioner and from a polythene bag, which was kept near an unmanned counter, which is alleged to have been kept by the petitioner, retrieved 100 rupee note and another one piece of One Hundred rupee note was retrieved from the packet of the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner was the note obtained by the petitioner from the Teller in exchange of other denomination notes. It is the further case of the petitioner that the whole episode of retrieval was stage managed.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to his house and he was kept outside while his house was searched by one Assistant General Manager and the wife of the petitioner was questioned. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent initially issued a memo on 29.4.2002, which was refused to be received by the petitioner and once again on 3.8.2002, another memo was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had surreptitiously removed 100 rupee notes from the cash department. The petitioner denied all the allegations and not being satisfied, the 2^nd respondent initiated enquiry and appointed enquiry officer.

4. The enquiry officer adopted biased procedure in the enquiry and the procedure adopted was against the well-settled procedure prescribed for enquiry. The enquiry officer permitted witnesses to be examined against the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to witnesses, who were not shown as witnesses. In effect, the enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that some of the charges have been proved. Based on the findings recorded in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority, vide final order dated 4.5.2004, in terms of clause 67 (b) of the Memorandum of Settlement imposed the punishment of removal of service on the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 11.8.2004 confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

5. Aggrieved by the above orders, the petitioner raised I.D. No.105/2005 before the court below and after hearing the parties, the court below confirmed the order passed by the authorities vide award dated 31.7.2006 aggrieved by which the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the authorities failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective in line with the explanation offered by the petitioner and, therefore, the findings recorded on the above materials are perverse and arbitrary.

7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the act of the petitioner in not receiving the letter dated 7.12.2001 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as being an act of insubordination is totally erroneous as the petitioner being a low grade servant, had submitted that he would seek the assistance of the Union and, thereafter, receive the letter, which is an act aimed at safeguarding himself.

8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that there is no material to show that the petitioner had taken the missing 100 rupee notes clandestinely and surreptitiously secluded it in the polythene bag as the cashier was the whole in-charge of the curr