SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 14.3.18 passed by learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent-writ petitioner assailing the order passed by the Appellate Authority, affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service, has been partly allowed and the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has been substituted with that of compulsory retirement. It is further directed that the respondent shall be entitled for all retiral and other consequential benefits, as he shall be treated to be compulsorily retired w.e.f. 3.9.13.
(2.) The facts relevant are that the respondent entered the services of the appellant-State Bank of India on 8.4.80 on being appointed as Electronic Automatic Machine Operator and Senior Assistant and was promoted to the post of Senior Special Assistant on 16.8.10. The respondent was served with a memorandum dated 8.8.12 advising him to furnish the explanation in respect of the lapses on his part while working at Shastri Nagar Jodhpur Branch. He was served with memorandum of charges dated 11.10.12 for various acts of misconduct committed by him while working as Senior Special Assistant at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Branch. The allegations against the respondent inter alia were that he opened back dated STDR/MOD Account unauthorisedly in the names of his family members/relatives and extended undue benefit of interest to them. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the respondent wherein charges of misconduct levelled against him were found proved. The Disciplinary Authority after due consideration of the relevant records and submissions of the respondent, imposed upon him the penalty of 'Dismissal from service without notice' in terms of Para 6 (a) of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workman dated 10th April, 2002 entered into between the Bank Management and Workmen Association. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.1.14. The legality of the order passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was questioned by the respondent by way of writ petition before this court.
(3.) A perusal of the order under appeal reveals that before the learned Single Judge, the respondent had given up his challenge to the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and questioned the legality of the order only on quantum of punishment.;