[2026:RJ-JP:1137]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9608/2002 A.K. Tandon s/o Late Shri Saligram Tandon, aged 50 years, resident of 563/25, Govind Nagar, Ramganj, Ajmer.

----Petitioner Versus Central Bank of India, a body corporate under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, through its head office situated at Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.

----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Kersi J. Mehta Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rupin K. Kala Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

Date of conclusion of arguments :: 08.01.2026 Date on which judgment was reserved :: 08.01.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced :: Full Judgment Date of pronouncement :: 16.01.2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 12.02.2002 pursuant to a departmental enquiry. The petitioner has also assailed order dated 06.06.2002 passed by the appellate authority whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the penalty order has been dismissed. The petitioner contends that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is excessive, harsh, and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and, therefore, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

2. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the petitioner was subjected to a regular departmental enquiry under Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Regulations of 1976') on charges of misconduct. Memorandum dated 19.12.1996 was duly served, the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to submit a reply, to participate in the enquiry proceedings, to cross-examine witnesses, and to lead defence evidence. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer returned findings holding the charges proved. The disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report and the petitioner’s reply, imposed the impugned penalty. The appellate authority thereafter affirmed the said decision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned penalty order is liable to be set aside as it is vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind and violation of the principles of proportionality, inasmuch as the disciplinary authority has imposed a harsh and excessive punishment wholly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the alleged misconduct. The findings recorded in the enquiry are perverse and based on selective consideration of evidence, while material exculpatory evidence and the petitioner’s defence have been ignored without assigning cogent reasons. The enquiry proceedings suffer from procedural infirmities, resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner and the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of this Court. The appellate authority has mechanically affirmed the penalty without independent consideration, thereby rendering the decision-making process flawed and amenable to judicial review under Articles 226 of the Constitution.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that neither the enquiry officer, nor the disciplinary authority, nor appellate authority has considered the fact that on account of continuous ailing health, the petitioner repeatedly requested the enquiry officer to grant adjournment in the departmental proceedings and the said request was supported by number of medical certificates issued by the competent authority, yet the enquiry officer proceeded ex-parte in the departmental proceedings and thereby, opportunity of hearing as well as putting forward defence, for which the petitioner-delinquent was entitled to under the Regulations of 1976, has not been afforded to the petitioner which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. In su