IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Merely because a show cause notice is issued by indicating proposed punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has taken a decision.
(2) If an officer/employee of bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, discipline of bank will disappear. When procedural guidelines are issued for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust on banks.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. This civil appeal is filed by the appellant in Writ Appeal No.361 of 2008 on the file of Gauhati High Court, aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2009. By the aforesaid order, the order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.219 of 2006 was confirmed. The learned Single Judge, while confirming the order of compulsory retirement in disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant, has held that withholding of service benefits as well as pensionary dues to the appellant is illegal and issued directions to pay the retiral benefits.

2. The appellant was the Manager of the first respondent-bank. On the basis of certain allegations levelled against him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge memo dated 18.06.2004 was issued. The substance of the charges is extracted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the reply filed by him on 15.07.2004, denying the charges, the respondent-bank having not satisfied with the explanation, has decided to order departmental enquiry against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer, after completing the enquiry by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that all the charges, i.e. charge nos.1 to 5, framed against the appellant were proved. In view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the respondent-bank has proposed to inflict the punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant. Based on the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry, has passed order imposing the punishment of “compulsory retirement” from service. The appellant was unsuccessful before the departmental appellate authority, i.e., Board of Directors of the Bank and the appellate authority has dismissed his appeal confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Challenging the order of the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, as confirmed by the appellate authority, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No.219 of 2006 before the Gauhati High Court. The learned Single Judge vide detailed judgment and order dated 08.06.2007 has not interfered with the order of compulsory retirement but at the same time has found that withholding of the service benefits including pensionary dues was illegal and issued directions for payment of such benefits to the appellant. As against the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred Writ Appeal No.361 of 2008. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned order, has dismissed the same by confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.

3. We have heard Sri Parthiv Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that after completion of enquiry, even before furnishing a copy of enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice dated 30.07.2005 vide Ref. No.LBG/I&V/PP&PA/154/08/2005-06 by indicating proposed punishment of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that such conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority even before the service of enquiry report, is illegal. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727 and the judgment of this Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. v. Mohammad Badruddin (2019) 16 SCC 69. Further submission of the learned counsel was that the disciplinary authority has not recorded any reasons in the order dated 29.08.2005 while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and similarly the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without recording reasons. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges, as such, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.

5. On the