- (1.) S. Rafat Alam, J. Heard Shri A. C. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellants and Dr. O. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) INSTANT special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11-4-2002 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 12631 of 1998 and setting aside the orders of punishment imposed upon the petitioner. Brief facts, relevant for the purpose of present appeal, are that the petitioner-respondent was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Central Bank of India, Branch Raniganj Bazar, Baria, District Ballia. It appears that in the year 1983 an amount of Rs. 51,015/- was sanctioned in his name as house loan for the construction of a house over plot No. 363, village Biur, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad for which charge was created in favour of the bank vide registered mortgage deed dated 9-6-1983. It is stated that the petitioner-respondent had another plot No. 63 at village Biur, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad and he had to get the construction of the house at plot No. 63, but due to inadvertent, mistake, in the document executed with the bank, it was mentioned as plot No. 363. However, as a matter of fact, the amount of bank was utilized by the petitioner-respondent for the construction of his house at plot No. 63. In the year 1990 plot No. 363 was sold by the petitioner- respondent. The petitioner-respondent in terms of loan agreement was required to repay the amount by way of deduction of Rs. 300/- per month from his salary, which has continuously been deducted from his salary for the satisfaction of loan and there was no default in the repayment. However, a charge-sheet dated 10-5-1993 was served upon the petitioner-respondent containing following charges: "he has been allowed a housing loan of Rs 51,615/- for construction of house over plot No. 363, village - Biur, Tehsil - Handia, District -Allahabad in the year 1983. He had also created a registered mortgage of the said plot as a security for the housing loan on 10-6-1983 in favour of the Bank as per stipulation of the sanction. Now it has been found that he has not constructed the said house over plot No. 363, Village-Biur, Tehsil-Handia, District Allahabad and also transfer the said plot to Shri Shyam Sunder. Sri Brij Behari, Shri Surya Mani and Shri Chandra Mani s/o Late Sri Ram Shiromani during the year 1990. The name of purchasers has also been entered in the records of Registry Office, Handia as well as Tehsil Handia. " After completion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 11-7-1994 holding charge proved. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 3-1-1995 imposed punishment of discharging him from service under clause 19. 6 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10-10-1966. The petitioner- respondent filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24-2-1996, as communicated vide letter dated 11-3-1996, modified the punishment order converting it in compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits and with disqualification for future employment. It is further submitted that the petitioner-respondent thereafter preferred mercy appeal dated 13-4-1996. In this mercy appeal, the punishment was further modified to lowering reduction in the pay scale at two stages permanently. Challenging the aforesaid orders of punishment the petitioner-respondent filed writ petition, which was allowed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on the ground that the allegation, contained in the charge-sheet against the petitioner-respondent, which has been found to be proved and on the basis whereof the punishment has been imposed, does not constitute misconduct.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that the Hon'ble Single Judge has committed an error in holding that the allegation found proved against the petitioner-respondent does not constitute gross misconduct under Clause 19. 5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement, whereunder the punishment can be awarded to the employee of the bank. It is further submitted that the bank has already taken a lenient view reducing punishment to large extent and, therefore, the Hon'ble Single Judge ought not to have exercised extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, contended that the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and committed no error in the aforesaid judgment.;