(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. A.K. Sahewalla, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. P. Bhowmick, learned Advocate for the sole respondent.

The employer/State Bank of India/appellant has questioned the judgment dated 22.08.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.1844/2015, whereby the punishment imposed upon the respondent has been interfered with and has been reduced to only reduction in the pay to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for 1(one) year without any cumulative effect with no adverse effect on his future service benefits.

The interference has been questioned on the ground that the learned Single Judge wrongly construed the provisions contained in Rule 67 of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 1992”), which provides for minor and major penalties and specifies that a delinquent could be punished under any one or more of the penalties prescribed for any act of misconduct or for any other good or sufficient reason(s) to be recorded in writing. The learned Single Judge interfered with the punishment on the ground that the net effect of the punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority would have had the effect of merging of 2(two) independent minor penalties.

A disciplinary action was initiated against the respondent while he was serving as an Assistant Manager at the Titabor Branch in Jorhat, Assam. Certain lapses were found which were relatable to the irregularities in the duties performed by the respondent. 4(four) specific charges were levelled against him and in the departmental enquiry, 2(two) of the charges stood proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and concluded that all the 4(four) charges were established. Consequently, the Appointing Authority imposed a major penalty under Rule 67(f) of the Rules of 1992, namely, of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for 1(one) year with no increment during that period and the reduction having a postponing effect on future increments.

This was challenged by the respondent before the Appellate Authority, which, in its wisdom, modified the penalty by removing the postponing effect on future increments but rest of the penalty was upheld.

A review petition preferred by the respondent was rejected.

The respondent thereafter, preferred a writ petition before this Court in which the learned Single Judge concluded that the charges against the respondent were of trivial in nature for which the imposition of the penalty in question by the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities was highly disproportionate and harsh. As such, the already reduced penalty was further modified to the extent that it was restricted only to withholding of increments for the period in question without any cumulative effect with no adverse effect on the respondent with respect to his future service benefits.

Mr. Sahewalla, learned Advocate for the appellant/Bank submitted that if at all the learned Single Judge was of the view that the respondent ought not to have been punished, the only option for him was to remand the case to the Disciplinary Authority to decide the matter from the stage of the vulnerability which was noticed by the learned Single Judge, i.e. at the stage of imposition of penalty. Under normal circumstances, the penalty ought not to have been interfered with, more so, when the Appellate Authority had already diluted the rigor of the penalty which was originally imposed upon the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority. He has further submitted that the logic employed by the learned Single Judge that withholding of increment of pay with or without cumulative effect is a separate penalty under Rule 67(b) of the Rules of 1992 and reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period without cumulative effect is again a separate penalty under Rule 67(e) of the Rules