JUDGMENT

(Sekhri-J)

01. This intra-court appeal seeks to assail judgment dated 15.05.2025, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 930/2023 whereby penalty imposed by the competent authority and reduced by appellate authority of the appellant -Bank upon the respondent came to be quashed.

CASE BEFORE THE WRIT COURT

02. Case set out by the respondent before the writ Court was that he joined the appellant-Bank in the year 1982 as Cashier-cum-Clerk and came to be promoted as Scale-I Officer. He came to be transferred and posted at Simbal Morh Branch of the Bank which was running in losses and had deposits of Rs. 23 crores against advances of Rs. 5.47 crores. According to the respondent, on taking over the said Branch, he started aggressive lending, but within the norms and guidelines of the Bank and brought the Branch to a profitable stage of more than Rs. 50 lakhs as on 31.03.2020.

2.1 On 16.04.2021, he came to be served with a charge-sheet by the Bank alleging, inter-alia, that while working as Senior Manager of the Branch, he had extended undue favour and sanctioned loans to selected borrowers by misusing his official position and in violation of the operational guidelines and norms of the Bank. It was alleged that he had exceeded the powers delegated to him by the Bank, thereby exposing the Bank’s funds to risk.

2.2. He submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet on 08.06.2021, by contending that by the time he left the aforesaid Branch, the advances which stood at Rs. 5.47 crores was increased to Rs. 19.92 crores, business of the Branch increased from Rs. 28.90 crores to Rs. 54 crores and NPA was reduced from 12.37% to 3.51%. According to the respondent, the Branch which was running in loss of Rs. 10.47 crores, was brought to a profit of Rs. 34.40 lakhs. It was also submitted by the respondent that most of the regularities, on account of routine mistakes and heavy workload had already been rectified.

2.3. The appellant-Bank, however being dissatisfied with the reply of the respondent appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 03.02.2022, whereby he came to conclude that except for the charge under Article 3, which was partially proved, rest of the charges were proved against the respondent.

2.4. Consequent upon the conclusion of the inquiry, respondent came to be served with a notice dated 28.02.2022 by the disciplinary/competent authority whereby he was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be reduced to the lowest stage in the pay scale of Officer Scale-II and why his superannuation benefits be not released on the reduced pay. The show-cause notice came to be responded by the respondent on 30.03.2022, whereby he sought personal hearing by stating that neither he committed malfeasance nor he intentionally caused any pecuniary loss to the Bank. The competent authority, however, accepted the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and vide order dated 23.05.2022 imposed penalty of reducing the respondent to the lowest stage in the pay scale of Officer Scale-II and also directed that all his superannuation benefits be released on the reduced pay.

2.5. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the disciplinary/competent authority, respondent preferred an appeal before respondent no. 2-the appellate authority/Board of Directors of the Bank, on 30.06.2022. The said appeal came to be disposed of vide order dated 02.11.2022, whereby order passed by the competent authority came to be modified in the following terms:-

"2. That the Basic pay of CSO is reduced to lowest stage (1st stage of pay ie. Rs 48,170/-) in the Pay Scale of Officer Scale I and all his superannuation benefits shall be released on the reduced pay; however, in accordance to punishment order no. JKGB/H.O./ DISP/ ORDER/ 16-300 dated 16.04.2016, the superannuation benefits shall be released only after the smooth recovery/ adjustment of all the loan accounts mentioned in Charge