The doctrine of proportionality necessitates that disciplinary penalties must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct; removal from service for unauthorized absence is disproportionate when the employee has long service and no record of dishonesty.

1. The jurisdiction of the Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the impugned punishment order dated 29.09.1995 (Annexure P-16), and the order dismissng the appeal vide order dated 26.08.2020 (Annexure P-23) & review vide order dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure P-25). With a further prayer for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits and pay him PF/Pensionary Benefits with interest till payment.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner joined Punjab National Bank in the year 1973 as a Clerk and, on account of his satisfactory service record, was promoted to Junior Management Grade-I in 1978 and thereafter to Middle Management Grade-II in 1985. The petitioner proceeded on sanctioned leave w.e.f. 30.07.1988 while posted at PNB, G.T. Road Branch, Panipat. The petitioner continued on medical leave and submitted medical certificates issued by a qualified medical practitioner, namely Dr. Ravinder (MBBS, MD), in compliance with Regulation 34(1) of the Punjab National Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979. The respondent-bank, however, insisted upon production of a certificate from the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and vide letter dated 29.05.1989 directed the petitioner to appear before the CMO but no docket was ever issued by the respondents.

3. During this period, the petitioner repeatedly expressed his willingness to resume duties. However, despite such requests, the petitioner was not permitted to join duties. According to the petitioner, his name was struck off from the attendance register from July 1989 onwards, even prior to initiation of any disciplinary proceedings. Simultaneously, the respondent-bank continued summoning the petitioner to attend various court cases as a witness on behalf of the bank between 1989 and 1994. The petitioner attended such proceedings on several dates and deposed on behalf of the bank. Despite rendering such services, no salary, subsistence allowance or leave benefits were released to him.

4. Thereafter, the respondent-bank issued a charge-sheet dated 24.07.1991 alleging unauthorized absence from duty. A departmental enquiry was initiated and the enquiry report held the petitioner guilty. Based thereon, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 18.09.1992 removing the petitioner from service.

5. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which was dismissed. Thereafter, in review proceedings found that the enquiry had been closed without affording him opportunity and consequently, the earlier enquiry proceedings, enquiry report and punishment order were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh proceedings from the stage at which the enquiry had been closed.

6. Upon remand, the matter was again entrusted to the same Enquiry Officer. The petitioner sought production of relevant records, including attendance registers for the period July 1989 to December 1989, to substantiate his plea that his name had been removed from the attendance register. However, according to the petitioner, the relevant records were withheld on the ground that they were not traceable/destroyed. The petitioner further alleged denial of adequate opportunity and non-supply of relevant documents during the enquiry proceedings.

7. The Enquiry Officer again submitted a report holding the petitioner gui