Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gopal Vajani, was employed by the State Bank of India (the Bank) since 1978, rising from Clerk-cum-typist to Scale-III officer. He was posted as Branch Manager at Ballarpur from October 1994 to January 1998. On 27 November 2000, he was served a charge-sheet under Rule 68(2)(iii) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (the Rules) alleging irregularities during his tenure as Branch Manager. After a disciplinary inquiry, the disciplinary and appointing authority imposed the penalty of removal from service under Rule 67(i) of the Rules on 16 January 2004. The petitioner's appeal and review against this order were dismissed by the appellate authority on 29 December 2004 and the reviewing authority on 11 November 2005, respectively. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging these orders. The court considered whether the punishment was disproportionate and whether the authorities acted perversely or violated principles of natural justice. The court held that the punishment was not disproportionate and that the disciplinary authority had correctly imposed the penalty considering the gravity of the misconduct. The court also noted that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and found no infirmity in the impugned orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Proportionality of Punishment - Rule 67(i) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules - The court examined whether the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate to the charges of irregularities committed by the petitioner while serving as Branch Manager at Ballarpur branch. The court held that the punishment was not disproportionate and the disciplinary authority had correctly imposed the penalty after considering the gravity of the misconduct. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - The court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to examining whether the disciplinary authority has acted perversely, in violation of principles of natural justice, or if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. The court found no such infirmity in the present case. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner under Rule 67(i) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules is disproportionate to the charges of irregularities committed as Branch Manager, and whether the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and reviewing authority acted perversely or in violation of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The orders of punishment, appeal, and review are upheld.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- proportionality of punishment
- judicial review of punishment
- misconduct by bank officer
- removal from service
