The court emphasized proportionality in disciplinary actions, asserting penalties must align with the seriousness of misconduct and take into account mitigating circumstances and lack of financial loss.

JUDGMENT :

V. NARASINGH, J.

Heard Mr. S.S Das, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D.K Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

1. The Petitioner who was working as Junior Management Grade, Scale-I (JMGS-I), State Bank of India, Buxibazar Branch, Cuttack assails the orders passed by the Appointing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority at Annexures-8 & 9 respectively imposing the punishment of Removal from service which is one of the major penalties in terms of the Rule 67(g) of STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS SERVICE RULES (SBIOSR), 1992.

It is apt to note here that, earlier assailing the order of “dismissal”, which was affirmed by Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No.18797 of 2019, the Petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.372 of 2017 and in terms of the order dated 07.01.2019 in the said Writ Appeal, the impugned orders at Annexures-8 and 9 altering the punishment of “Dismissal” to removal” has been passed which is challenged in the present Writ Petition.

2. Brief facts germane for just adjudication are indicated hereunder;

The Petitioner was working as Officer Junior Management Grade Scale-1 and during his incumbency as Assistant manager (advances) at Buxi bazar branch was departmentally proceeded for the allegation of irregularities at fraudulent withdrawal to the tune of Rs.25.92 lacks from his two overdraft accounts. On the basis of such allegation a Departmental Enquiry as well as a criminal case was instituted.

3. In the Departmental Enquiry the Petitioner participated and the Disciplinary Authority recommended for imposition of penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by five stages for a period of five years, not earning increments during the period of rigor but not postponing future increments on expiry of the period of rigor and not adversely affecting his pension in terms of Rule 67(f) of State Bank of India Officer Service Rules,1992 (SBIOSR), the period of suspension of the Petitioner, who on the date of the order was suspension, directed to be treated as such i.e. not on duty.

At this stage it is apt to note that reference to Rule 67(f) of State Bank of India Officer Service Rules is a patent error in as much the punishment recommended comes within the hold of Rule 67(e) of SBIOSR. For convenience of reference and to avoid any confusion both rules 67(e) and 67(f) of SBIOSR are extracted hereunder:

“xxx

xxx

xxx

67. Without prejudice to any other provisions contained in these rules, any one or more of the following penalties may be imposed on an officer, for an act of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reason:-

Minor Penalties

(a) censure;

(b) withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect;

(c) withholding of promotion;

(d) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of orders.

Major Penalties

(e) reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in a time scale;

(f) compulsory retirement;

(g) removal from service:

(h) dismissal.

xxx

xxx

xxx”

4. The recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority came for consideration of the appointing Authority and the Appointing Authority taking into account the seriousness of the charges and also the background that the Petitioner is working in a financial institution dealing with public money, felt that the infliction of penalty of dismissal would be appropriate and accordingly disagreed with the recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority.

5. Assailing such order, the Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.18797 of 2009 and by order dated 30.08.2017, the Hon’ble single Judge dismissed the writ petition and while doing so the submission that the Petitioner in the meanwhile being acquitted in the criminal case was also taken note of.

6. Thereafter, Intra Court Writ Appeal No.372 of 2017 was filed by the Petitioner assailing the order of the Hon’ble single Judge pass