THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2903 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Syndicate Bank on 31.05.1978. In 1979, he was transferred to Rajahmundry branch of the bank. He worked there for two decades and was transferred in 1999 to Bhimavarapu Kota Branch. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 09.11.2000. The allegation against the petitioner was that he maintained an account in which huge remittances disproportionate to his known source of income were made and that he attended the meeting of the Executive Committee of Office Bearers, on 28.05.1998, at Hyderabad and on the same day, he signed in the attendance register of the branch. The petitioner submitted his explanation and denied the allegations. Not satisfied with the explanation, the respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer. Through his report, dated 09.11.2000, the Enquiry Officer holds that the charges against the petitioner are not held proved. The 2nd respondent, however, has chosen not to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, enclosing a copy of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the proposal of the 2nd respondent to differ with the findings. Not satisfied with the explanation, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 26.09.2001, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay scale by two stages. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the 1st respondent was rejected. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is absolutely no basis for the 2nd respondent to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He contends that opening of an account by itself is not an act of misconduct, and the mere remittances into the account cannot be an act of indiscipline. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer agreed with the petitioner that he did not remain absent on any day, on which he signed the attendance register. Sri A.Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the 2nd respondent has assigned cogent reasons, while differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the punishment imposed against the petitioner is proportionate to the nature of allegations against him. Two charges were framed against the petitioner. One is about the opening of account and maintenance thereof by the petitioner and the second is about his signing of attendance register on 28.05.1998, even while participating in a meeting at Hyderabad. From a perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner it appears that on an earlier occasion, vigilance inspection had taken place and the petitioner responded to the remarks made against him. He made the explanation offered by him as part of the record. Before the Enquiry Officer, oral and documentary evidence was adduced. On an analysis of the same, he recorded a finding to the effect that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. It is no doubt true that it is competent and open for the 2nd respondent to differ with the findings. In the instant case, he has chosen to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as provided for in law. No procedural irregularity was committed. All the same, the reasons furnished by the 2nd respondent for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not objective. The conclusion was arrived at on a subjective analysis of the facts. This Court is of the view that the reduction of pay scale by two stages is a bit severe, when compared to the imputation against the petitioner and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing that the punishment imposed against the petitioner shall be reduction of pay scale by one stage. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22.12.2010. GJ