IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary authorities must act independently, and reliance on external recommendations can violate principles of natural justice, leading to invalid proceedings.

ORDER:

1. Heard the learned Senior Designate Counsel Sri C.Nageswara Rao, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri A.Krishnam Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

PRAYER:

2. The petitioner approached the court seeking prayer as under:

“......issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the findings and the orders of the Disciplinary Authority 3rd respondent dated 01.04.2003, and subsequent and the consequential orders of the Appellate Authority dated 03.07.2003 and the orders of the Reviewing Authority dated 24.09.2003, are liable to be quashed and to set aside the same and in the interest of justice the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.....”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD:

(A) The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents, in particular, Paras 4, 7, 48, 52, read as under:

“4. It is submitted that the Departmental Enquiry was conducted as per the rules and the principles of natural justice were followed and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself against the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering entire material including Enquiry Officer's Report, passed a detailed order on 29.3.2003 assigning elaborate reasons for arriving at the conclusions recorded therein and imposed punishment of “compulsory retirement from bank service.” The punishment imposed is proportionate for the misconduct committed by the petitioner and is as per the rules under which the Disciplinary Proceedings are initiated. The writ petition is not maintainable as the scope of judicial review is limited and as per settled legal position, the Hon'ble Court will not generally interfere or act as an Appellate Authority and re- appreciate the evidence available on the record and examine the proportionality of the punishment imposed to the petitioner.

7. In reply to Para 2 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the averments are relating to the impugned order and the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the above writ petition and they do not require any comments from the respondents. It is suffice to say that there are no valid and justified grounds to seek the indulgence of the Hon'ble Court for the reliefs sought therein. The enquiry was conducted as per principles of natural justice and opportunity was also given to the petitioner to defend himself at all stages of enquiry. On having independently and carefully gone through the entire record of disciplinary proceedings including the report of the Inquiring Authority and the submissions thereon made by the Charge Sheeted Official (CSO), and taking into consideration the nature of charges/imputations held as established against the Official, the Disciplinary Authority/General Manager (Operations) has imposed on him the penalty of compulsory retirement from Bank's Service vide his orders dated 29th March, 2003. On having gone through the appeal preferred by the Official and since no extenuating factors were brought out in the appeal necessitating for reconsideration of the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and also the nature of serious misconduct established against the official, the Appellate Authority/Chief General Manager dismissed his appeal accordingly and upheld the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the petitioner. On having carefully gone through the records of the enquiry into the charges and also his submissions in the review petition, the Reviewing Authority/Managing Director observed that the charge sheeted official (CSO) had merely repeated his submissions made during enquiry hearings and in appeal made by him against the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. The Reviewing Authority further observed that all the submissions' have been thoroughly addressed and examined by the Disciplinary Authority. The Reviewing Authority further observed that the Charge Sheeted Official (CSO) had not brought forth any new argument or plea to w