- (1.) There is no representation for the Petitioner and I proceed to examine the case on the basis of records.
(2.) The matter relates to the conduct of a domestic enquiry held by a bank by a charge-sheet issued to the Petitioner when he was in-charge of the current account section in the Jalandhar branch of Union Bank in the year 1983. The charge-sheet and enquiry came to be initiated when there were certain wrong entries relating to amounts of two customers that caused a loss to the bank to the tune of Rs. 9,121.96 paise. The Petitioner deposited the said amount with the said bank but the bank still proceeded with enquiry for the alleged lapse on the part of the Petitioner.
(3.) The charge-sheet and enquiry led to finding of guilt of the Petitioner and the punishment was handed down to the Petitioner by stoppage of increments. The plea in the writ petition is that the punishment was not proportionate to the alleged misconduct. It is also contended that the charge-sheet itself was not justified since no loss had been occasioned to the bank. It is not merely an issue of loss to the bank, but some lapses which the disciplinary authority found as established. The issue of quantum of punishment itself cannot be a subject of judicial review unless the punishment meted out was capricious or it is of such a type that would shock the judicial conscience of the Court. I do not find any such extraordinary situation for making an intervention. The impugned order is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed.;