- (1.) In this special appeal filed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 , the appellant is challenging the validity of the judgment dated 9.1.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(2.) As per the facts of the case in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondent-bank, the appellant-petitioner was removed from service of the bank, besides, other punishments, namely, recovery of Rs.1,000/-, reduction of basic pay to the lowest basic pay in the time scale (Junior Manager Grade Scale-I) and withdrawal of promotion for a period of three years from the date of order vide order dated 2.3.1995. Against the said order passed by the disciplinary authority of the respondent-bank, the appellant-petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager (Personnel) which is appellate authority on 18.4.1995. The appellate authority after considering the grounds raised by the appellantpetitioner set aside the order of removal from services and substituted the punishment to each proved charges and passed the following order: (i) Charge no.1 proved :- Reduction of Basic Pay of Shri Bairwa to the lowest Basic Pay in the time scale (JMC-Scale I) applicable to him namely Rs.2100/-. (ii) Charge No.2 Proved :- Recovery of Rs.1000/- from pay and allowances payable to Shri Bairwa or such other amount as may be due to him. (iii) Charge No.3 Proved :- Reduction of Basic pay of Shri Bairwa to the lowest Basic Pay in the time scale (JMG-Scale I) applicable to him namely Rs.2100/-. (iv) withholding of promotion for a period of 3 years from the date of this order.
(3.) In SBCWP No.3318/1998 the appellant petitioner challenged the order of appellate authority on various grounds. The learned Single Judge while following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India Vs. Bela Bagchi & Ors, 2005 7 SCC 435, State Bank of India & ors. Vs. S.N. Goyal, 2008 8 SCC 92, Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur, 2008 14 SCC 445 dismissed the writ petition while observing in the roder that as per the settled principle of law the very benevolent and charitable view has been taken by the appellate authority in retaining the petitioner in services and substituting the penalties. The learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the writ petition on the ground that in disciplinary inquiry the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. we have also perused the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. In our opinion, the charges leveled against the appellant-petitioner were so serious upon which after due consideration upon the evidence, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal alonwith other penalties, but very lenient view was taken by the appellate authority to quash the order of removal and to substitute the punishment as mentioned above.;