The court upheld the principle that bank officers must act within their allotted sphere of authority and exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. This writ petition involves a challenge to the orders at Annexure-1, 2 and 4 i.e. the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority as well in the matter of a disciplinary proceeding involving the petitioner.

2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner being selected in a duly constituted selection process held by the Andhra Bank authority; was appointed as a Probationary Officer in the Andhra Bank on 4.4.1987. While continuing as such, the petitioner was promoted as a Branch Manager on 14.5.1992 and during his continuance as Branch Manager, in the year 1997, the petitioner was transferred to Odisha. While the petitioner was continuing in the Hirakud branch of the Andhra Bank in the State of Odisha, he faced a departmental proceeding on framing charges on 13 heads. It is submitted that pursuant to notice by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner participated in the proceeding and on conclusion of the evidence and submissions of both the sides, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 22.10.1999 indicating therein that the petitioner has been exonerated from charge no. 1, charge no. 2, charge no. 4, charge no. 5, charge no. 7 and the charge no. 3 was partly proved whereas the rest of the charges such as the charge nos. 8 to 13 have all been proved. Consequent upon submission of the report, the Disciplinary Authority considering the observations of Enquiry Officer gave notice to show cause involving the punishment to be awarded, and upon consideration of the response of the petitioner observed that the petitioner is found guilty on several serious charges and as such, in agreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order under Annexure-1 imposed major penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from the Bank service with immediate effect following the Regulation of ABOE (D&A) Regulation but however, giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal, if he is so advised.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred an appeal. It appears, the appellate authority on consideration of the grounds raised and after observing that the lapses on the part of the delinquent so far as the matter of accounting is concerned, appearing to be bona-fide, further finding that the amount involved was adjusted subsequently, only reduced the major penalty of dismissal from Bank service to that of compulsory retirement from Bank service following the provision contained in Regulation of ABOE (D&A) Regulation. Being further aggrieved by the order at Annexure-2, the petitioner preferred review to the competent authority and from Annexure-4 it appears, the reviewing authority in agreement with the order of the appellate authority dismissed the review.

4. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two grounds for interfering in the impugned order by this Court. Such as:-firstly, the petitioner having not been provided with an opportunity of show cause as against the enquiry report, resulting the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the consequential orders vitiates, secondly the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that looking to the nature of the offences, the punishment appears to be disproportionate to the gravity of offence. Taking this Court to the grounds taken in the writ petition and the observations of the Enquiry Officer on the charges involving the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to substantiate the grounds submitting that since the petitioner has already suffered a lot, this Court should take a lenient view by directing the employer to at least reduce the punishment.

5. To the contrary, Shri C.A. Rao, learned Senior Advocate taking this Court to the inquiry report, the memorandum of a