The High Court's power of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to examining the decision-making process; it cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence or interfere with the quantum of punishment unless such punishment is strikingly disproportionate or the proceedings are vitiated by perversity or procedural illegality.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 29.09.2020 pursuant to a departmental enquiry. Vide the said penalty order, it was also directed that the penalty of removal from service shall not be a disqualification for the petitioner for future employment and further, the period of suspension of the petitioner shall be treated as period not spent on duty and he shall not be eligible for any benefits accrued during the said period, if any. The petitioner has also assailed order dated 06.05.2021 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 on account of certain discrepancies, the petitioner, while working as an Officer of Bank of Baroda, Pilibanga Branch, was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.02.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to a regular departmental enquiry on charges of carring on fraudulent transfers from the account holders of the Bank to his relatives and with regard to certain transactions, the customers of the Bank have also submitted complaints. A charge-sheet under the provisions of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 1976') was duly served and the petitioner was afforded full opportunity 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, served copy of enquiry report along with a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and thereafter, the disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report, imposed the impugned penalty. On appeal filed by the petitioner against the penalty order, the appellate authority thereafter affirmed the said decision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 of removal from service, which is wholly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the alleged misconduct. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that 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 would also shock 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 of India.

4. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether this Court, in exercise of its limited power of judicial review, can interfere with the penalty imposed by the di