1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2831 OF 1998 Arvind S/o Ganpatrao Kalaskar .... PETITIONER V E R S U S The Marathwada Gramin Bank .... RESPONDENT Mr.P.V.Mandlik, Sr. Counsel for petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 22/07/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. The present petition takes exception to the order dated 6/1/1998 passed by the Chiarman of respondent no. 1 and the order in Appeal dated 17/3/1998 passed by the Board of Directors, thereby confirming the dismissal of the petitioner from service. 2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Field Supervisor with respondent no. 1. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on charges of long absentism and also defrauding the bank by accepting the amount of Rs. 80/- and not depositing 2 the same for the period of 3 weeks. 3. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty on both the charges. Thereafter, the Chairman took decision to dismiss the petitioner from service on both the counts. The petitioner preferred Appeal before the Board of Directors of respondent no. 1. The appellate authority concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority and confirmed the order. 4. Mr. Mandlik, the learned Sr. counsel submitted that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges. The petitioner offered valid explanation for not depositing amount of Rs. 80/- for the period of 3 weeks. He had proceeded on leave and immediately after joining the service, the petitioner had deposited the said amount. 5. As far as long absentism is concerned, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that there was untoward incident, because of which he had to remain absent. 6. Mr. Shahane, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the decision of dismissal of the petitioner is legal and valid. On earlier occasions also, the petitioner was reprimanded. He was also dismissed in service, but in Appeal a lenient approach was taken and he was reinstated. 3 7. This Court would not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the departmental proceedings. The principles of natural justice appears to have been followed. Taking into account the past conduct and the charges framed against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has taken the decision. The said decision does not, on the face of it, appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Though theory of proportionality has to be considered, still the past conduct also would be relevant. Coupled with the same, no plausible explanation has been given by the petitioner for his abnormal absence. 8. In the light of the above, no error can be found in the impugned order. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2831.98