1 WP 6558/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6558 OF 2007 * Shrikant S/o Baburao Jathar ] Age 56 years, ] Occupation : at present Nil ] R/o 11, Rupshree, ] Union Bank Colony, Savedi, ] Ahmednagar – 414 003. ]... Petitioner Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra ] Through Ministry of ] Banking, Mantralaya, ] Mumbai – 32. ] 2) Union Bank of India, ] Through its Chairman, ] having its Head Office ] at Nariman Point, Mumbai. ] 3) The Disciplinary Authority ] (Chief Manager) ] Union Bank of India, ] Human Resources ] Management Department, ] Zonal Office, Bhopal. ] 4) The Appellate Authority, ] (Deputy General Manager), ] Human Resources ] Management Department, ] Central Office, Mumbai. ].. Respondents. ----- 2 WP 6558/2007 Shri. S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 to 4. ------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 30th JUNE 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NARESH H PATIL, J.): 1) Heard. 2) Rule. By consent of the counsel for the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing. 3) The petitioner challenges the order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 24-1-2007 passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 24-7-2007 of the appellate authority. 4) The petitioner was working as a Clerk in the respondent bank. He was promoted as Manager 3 WP 6558/2007 in the year 2001. In the year 2002 the petitioner was working as Manager in Jaysingpur Branch in Kolhapur District. On certain charges an enquiry was instituted against the petitioner. Inquiry report was filed. The disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal from services of the bank with immediate effect vide an order dated 24-1-2007. The petitioner preferred appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority by an order dated 24th July 2007 rejected the appeal. 5) The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri.Gangapurwala has taken us through the charges levelled, the written submissions filed by the petitioner to the charges, the enquiry report and other relevant documents. We have perused the same. The thrust of the argument of Shri. Sanjay Gangapurwala is that reading of the order passed by the appellate authority does not reflect application of mind to the substantive charges levelled and the explanation given by the 4 WP 6558/2007 petitioner to the charges. At one place even the appellate authority has observed that the petitioner sanctioned loan for personal benefits which, according to the counsel, is a serious stigmatic observation. 6) The learned counsel appearing for the Bank Shri. S.V. Natu has placed reliance on a reported judgment in Niraj Kumar Singh v. Union Bank of India, 2008 (2) Bom. C.R. 237 in support of his submission that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the Court does not sit as Court of Appeal on fact and law. The order essentially must be one which is perverse, not supported by any evidence or of a nature where statutory regulations have been violated to the prejudice of delinquent officer. In such circumstances only, according to the counsel, this Court could interfere into the matter. 5 WP 6558/2007 7) We have perused the relevant documents placed on record and the impugned order passed by the appellate authority minutely. We do find that the appellate authority could have considered the matter and dealt with the same by proper reasoning which would reflect application of mind. The authority exercising appellate powers could, therefore, be directed to consider the matter afresh and decide the appeal in accordance with the facts and law. We are informed that the petitioner had rendered 34 years service with the bank. The past record of the petitioner is unblemished. The petitioner was promoted as Manager in the year 2002 and the charges levelled against the petitioner relate to the period of his working as Manager. All these issues are for the appellate authority to be considered. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the matter at this stage. But we do find that the appellate authority would consider and deal with the issues in little elaborate manner and arrive at appropriate reasoning which would reflect 6 WP 6558/2007 application of mind by the appellate authority. With this view, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the appellate authority. The petitioner is entitled, if he desires, to file an application for oral submissions of the petitioner before the appellate authority. If such an application is filed it is for the appellate authority to deal with the application in accordance with law. 8) The order dated 24th July 2007 passed by the appellate authority – Deputy General Manager (HRM) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the said appellate authority. The appellate authority would dispose of the appeal of the petitioner within three months from today on its own merits and in accordance with law. 9) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.6558.07