1. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Regional Manager of the Respondent-Bank, dated 06.09.1990, dismissing the petitioner from the service as well as order passed by the General Manager(Appellate Authority), dismissing the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 03.07.1991 and the order passed by the Sr. Manager(Personnel), dated 12.01.1993, rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was performing the duties as Manager at Branch Office at Bhuj-Kachchh, was served with a charge-sheet on 04.10.1989, wherein five different charges were levelled against him. The charge-sheet was supported by the statement of imputation in support of the article of charges. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge- sheet on 22.02.1990, wherein the petitioner pointed out that the Bank did not suffer any financial loss because of any act of the petitioner. It was, also, pointed out that the petitioner did not extend any undue favour to the parties, as alleged in the charge-sheet. He, further, pointed out that the delay in dispatch was result of the circumstances existing and did not speak about anything of the intention of the petitioner for extending the undue financial help to the parties, in violation of the Bank norms. He, further, submitted that the charges with regard to Kite Flying Operation are levelled against him in the charge-sheet in respect of the Thakker Group. He, further, pointed out various details with regard to charges levelled against him. While relying upon these averments, he prayed for a writ of mandamus, seeking direction or quashing of the impugned orders with further reliefs of reinstatement on his original post with full back-wages and continuity of service.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold contentions. According to him, apart from the petitioner there were a number of other officers, including the Regional Manager, Mr.
R.M. Garg, Mr. J.K. Gohel, the then Manager of the Bhuj Branch office, Mr. K.V. Dholakia, Sr. Clerk of the Bhuj branch, Mr. H.B. Udhas and number of other officers, who were issued charge-sheets and independent inquiries were held against them. However, none of these persons have been awarded punishment of removal from service. The punishment awarded to the present petitioner was disproportionate to the offence committed by him. It was, further, submitted that loss alleged to have been caused to the Bank pertain to other places as well, however, the respondent authorities have tried to painted a picture, as if, the entire loss has been caused because of the fault of the petitioner. Further, it has been pointed out that the respondent-Bank has not brought on record the loss caused on account of fraud or negligence by the other officers, who have been awarded lesser punishment. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioner should have been compulsorily retired in place of dismissal from service, as this would have entitled him to get pension and other retiral benefits.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find no substance in the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the material on record shows that after services of the charge-sheet dated 02/06.12.1989, for the lapses committed by the petitioner, while working as Branch Manager, Bhuj- Kachchh, his reply was taken into consideration. The reply was found to be unsatisfactory and departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The inquiry officer submitted his findings, thereafter. The inquiry proceedings including the statements of the defence as well as the pleadings of the inquiry officer were taken into consideration by the higher officials, including the Reviewing Authority. According to them, the charge-sheet stood proved as much as the petitioner abused his official position in many ways and made available for the various parties of the Thakker and other groups and accommodated them unauthorizedly. He was, further, found guilty for concealing the facts from the authorities and accordingly punishment of removal from service has been imposed.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised issue regarding involvement of the other officers and lesser punishment having been awarded to them. However, there is nothing on record from which inference can be drawn that the punishment awarded to those officers was lesser than that of the petitioner. This fact has been considered by the respondents and as the petitioner failed to produced any evidence in this regard, his plea has rightly been declined by the respondents.
6. The scope of the inquiry by this Court is limited. This Court cannot sit as a court of appeal against the proceedings which are in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any procedural irregularity in the departmental proceedings. In absence of any lapse on the part of the respondents, while conducting inquiry, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the inquiry conducted by the respondent authorities. This is, particularly, so when the respondents have suffered huge loss of Rs.1,89,59,682.14/-, which is clear from the judgment delivered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, on 20.09.2006. It will be relevant to add that this amount has remained un-recovered, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank.
7. For the afore-mentioned reasons, the petition fails and is DISMISSED. Rule is discharged.
Umesh/ (MOHINDER PAL,J.)