- (1.) The petitioner, an ex-service-man while serving as a security guard at the branch office of the respondent Bank, was involved in a criminal case under Sections 307 IPC and 30 of the Arms Act. The learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 307 IPC but found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 30 of Arms Act and granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1954. The High Court vide order dated February 9, 1998 disposed of the Criminal Appeal No. 100/1998, preferred by the petitioner, observing that in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1954, disqualification attached with the conviction shall not adversely affect the services of the petitioner. The respondent Bank thereafter on May 13, 1998 initiated departmental enquiry and served a charge-sheet on the petitioner charging him as under : "(i) Your action of firing upon Shri Bhanwar Singh, Peon on May 24, 1996 at around 3.20 PM from the licensed gun provided to you by the Bank with an intention to physically hurt him, amounts to riotous and disorderly behaviour in the premises of the Bank, which constitutes Gross Misconduct under sub-clause (c) of Clause 19.5 of Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement 1966. (ii) By firing upon Shri Bhanwar Singh, Peon on May 24, 1996 at around 3.20 PM from the licensed gun provided to you by the Bank with an intention to physically hurt him, you have committed act Grossly Subversive of Discipline, which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and thus constitutes "Gross Misconduct" within the meaning of sub clause (c) of clause 19.5 of Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement 1966."
(2.) The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated October 17, 1998 found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and removed him from the services. The departmental appeal preferred against the order was also dismissed on December 14, 1999. The single Bench of this Court vide order dated November 18, 2002 partly allowed the writ petition, preferred by the petitioner against the said orders and after observing that the penalty of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate substituted the penalty of removal from service by withholding of four grade increments with cumulative effect of the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the Special Appeal, preferred by the respondent Bank, vide order dated October 20, 2003 and set aside the order of the single Bench. The case has been remanded back for decision in accordance with law.
(3.) The Division Bench in the order dated October 20, 2003 observed as under: "In this case the learned single Judge has not given any ground - good, bad or indifferent as to how this penalty imposed upon the delinquent employee is disproportionate to the guilt proved against the petitioner respondent No. 1 in the departmental enquiry. The learned single Judge also not gave any reason what to say cogent and justified reason as to how the penalty imposed upon the delinquent employee has shaken the conscience of the Court. No ground has been recorded in support of the conclusion reached that the penalty imposed in the present case upon the delinquent employee is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt proved against him. That apart the learned single Judge has not recorded any finding that this is an exceptional or rare case where he may himself impose appropriate punishment upon the delinquent employee for the charges proved against him in the departmental enquiry. In our considered opinion the impugned order passed by learned single Judge cannot be allowed to stand.";