B.J.SHETHNA,J. - (1.) BY an order dated 12.9.1997, passed by my learned Brother Hon'ble V.G. Palshikar, J. the respondents were called upon to show cause as to why this petition should not be admitted only on the ground of excessive punishment. Detailed reply affidavit is filed in this petition on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) IN view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 12.9.1997, learned Counsel Shri Dave for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has got very good case on merits, the maximum penalty of dismissal from service would be as good as death penalty which may be reduced proportionately, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the penalty of dismissal from service can be modified by imposing a penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and also denying the back wages to the petitioner from the date of dismissal till the order of reinstatement with the modified penalty. However, learned Counsel Shri Vyas for the respondent Bank relying upon Supreme Court judgment in case of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner v. Sharat Narayan Parab reported in 1997 (9) Supreme Today page 381 vehemently submitted that Court cannot go into the question of punishment unless and until it is found that the penalty of dismissal is highly disproportionate or the order of dismissal is wholly unreasonable. He submitted that at the most the order of dismissal can be converted into an order of removal but nothing more can be done in the matter. He further submitted that looking to the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner he cannot be continued in service of the Bank any more by passing the aforesaid order of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, and denying back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.
(3.) ONCE the respondent Bank is not agree on the point of reduction of penalty, this Court is left with no option but to go into the merits of the case and decide the same.;