- (1.) Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 25. 01. 219 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. Respondent had been compulsorily retired from service on account of serious charges of misconduct levelled against him. Order of compulsory retirement preceded a detailed enquiry. Hence, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the appellants against the respondent was liable to be upheld. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U. P. & Others Vs. Nand Kishore Shukla & Another, (1996) 3 SCC 750, wherein it was held as under: "7. It is settled law that the court is not a court of appeal to go into the question of imposition of the punishment. It is for the disciplinary authority to consider what would be the nature of the punishment to be imposed on a government servant based upon the proved misconduct against the government servant. Its proportionality also cannot be gone into by the court. The only question is whether the disciplinary authority would have passed such an order. It is settled law that even one of the charges, if held proved and sufficient for imposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority, the court would be loath to interfere with that part of the order. The order of removal does not cast stigma on the respondent to disable him from seeking any appointment elsewhere. Under these circumstances, we think that the High Court was wholly wrong in setting aside the order. "
(3.) Respondent, appearing in person, has opposed the appeal. Respondent was working as Assistant Manager with the appellant-Bank and was served with a charge sheet dated 29. 12. 2014 alleging that on 14. 08. 2014, he had entered a fraudulent transaction of Rs. 8,000/- by debiting amount of Rs. 8,000/- from Account No. 352602850009000. Respondent then attempted to withdraw the said amount by preparing one loose leaf No. 3784588, which was entered with Transaction ID AA392052 by Mangi Lal Sharma. Since the signatures of the drawer did not match, the accountant took the withdrawal form in his custody and fraud was averted.;