Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to ensuring fair treatment; the proportionality of punishment must relate to the nature of misconduct and established duties, not merely a comparison with others' penalties.

JUDGMENT :

C. KUMARAPPAN, J.

The present Writ Appeal is filed assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2019 made in WP.No.19387 of 2013. The appellant as well as the respondents herein were arrayed as the petitioner and respondents respectively before the Writ Court.

2. For the convenience sake, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Writ Court.

3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present writ appeal is that, the petitioner when he was working as Regional Head at Chennai, was issued with the charge memorandum dated 08.09.2007 containing 9 charges. The charges are in the nature of sanctioning loan to the creditors without following the guidelines and thereby, caused huge financial loss to the Bank. He gave explanation to the charge memorandum. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the respondents proceeded with the domestic enquiry, and after completing the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 17.03.2009. According to the Enquiry Report, the charges 1 to 5 and 9 were proved and other charges were not proved. The petitioner has submitted his further explanation to the enquiry report. However, he was imposed with the capital punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 26.02.2010. Aggrieved with the same, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, even, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority vide his order dated 03.01.2013. Aggrieved with the said order, when the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition, vide impugned order dated 31.10.2019, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same. Not satisfying with the order of the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

4. Heard Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr.P.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the respondents.

5.(a).The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would vehemently contend that the findings of the Enquiry Officer has no clarity and even according to the enquiry report, in respect of charges 1 to 5, no exclusive finding of guilt against the petitioner. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on a similar set of charges, another person in the cadre of Branch Manager was prosecuted. But, though he was instrumental for all the loss to the Bank, he was awarded with the lesser punishment of compulsory retirement, whereas the petitioner was imposed with the capital punishment of dismissal from service, which act according to the petitioner is a discrimination.

(b). The learned counsel would further contend that according to Union Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the Appellate Authority, shall on receipt of comments and records has to consider whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate. Whereas, in the case in hand, the Appellate Authority, while passing the order on 03.01.2013 has not followed the above Regulations. Therefore, the very order impugned in the writ petition is ipso facto illegal. Notwithstanding the above contention, the learned counsel would also urge before this Court that the petitioner having served unblemishedly for more than two decades, on the fag end of his service, imposing a punishment of dismissal is disproportionate and the same requires modification by exercising the mercy jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 331 ;

2. Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 ;

3. Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of I