HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Coram :" Hon'bte Shri V.K. Shrivastava and Hon?ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, JJ WritAppeai (PR) No. 7257 of 2006 Appeflant: Respondents R.N. Rana, S/o Shri Natwar Singh, Aged about 60 years, R/o LIG 28, Sector - 1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Versus Dena Bank, A Banking Company incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having it's Head Office at Maker Towers 'E' Cuffe Parade, Bombay 400 005 Through the Chairman. The Generai Manager, Personnel Admjnistration & Social Banking (PASB), Dena Bank, Maker Towers 'E' Cuffe Parade, Bombay 400 005. The Deputy Generaf Manager, Dena Bank, Maker Towers 'E' Cuffe Parade, Bombay 400 005. The Assistant Generai Manager (Perspnnel), Personnel Department, 7 Floor, Dena Bank, Maker Towers 'E' Cuffe Parade, Bombay 400 005. ^ Present:- Miss Deepali Pandsy, counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. JUDGIVIENT (Passed on 6th day of February,2007) The judgment ofthe Courtwas passed by Vljay Kumar Shrivastava, J.—Appeiiant was an employee of Dena Bank; after departmental enquiry he was removed from his services by the Bank vide order dated 30-8-1989. Against the said order, he •!• 4;"' -.<.,,.y- preferred statutory appeal, that was dismissed vide order dated 24-2-1990. Thereafter,he filsd review petition that was dismissed on 6-4-1992. Again he preferred review appeal and that was also dismissed on 15-9-1995. Feeling aggrieved he instituted a writ petition bearing No.159 of 1996 (R.N, Rana vs. Dena Bank and Others) for seeking reinstatement in service, award of suspension allowance or part wages with consequentiai benefits. 2) Learned Single Judge heard both the parties, perused the records appended to the petjtion as aiso considered the return. It was found that the petitioner (appellant herein) had admitted ali the charges leveiied against him and his defence was oniy to the extent that there was no financial loss caused to the Bank. The petitioner was suppiied with an enquiry report also along with the order. The petitioner approached the appeliate authority, revisional authority after having received the enquiry report. The purpose of second show cause notice has been served and the petitioner has sufficient opportunity to submit his exptanation against the enquiry report. No prejudice was caused to the petitioner in absence of non-issuance of second show cause notice. Neither procedural requirement in conduct of enquiry nor thereafter before passing the Impugned order of termination has been oyerlooked. Learned Singie Judge after due appreciation of materia! available on record held that no irregularity, impropriety or iilegality has been committed by the respondent/Bank Authorities during the enquiry or thereafter, Aft^r taking the shelter of various judgments/law laid down by Hon'bie Apex Court from time to time,leamed SingJe Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 6-92006 by a reasoned and elaborated order. '^] \" 3) Against the aforesaid order, the appellant filed a review petition bearing No.23 of 2006 (R.N. Rana vs. Dena Bank and Others). Learned Single Judge considered the same and dlsmissed the review petitlon, vide orderdated 30-10-2006. Hencethis instantwritappeal. 4) Once appellant instead of filing writ appeal took recourse of review, he is abstained from filing writ appeal for reconsideration after dismissa! of his review petition. 5) Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Govt of india & Anr. Vs. George Philip1 heid thus : "The jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal or the High Court is a iimited one and while exercising the power of judiciat review, they cannot set aside the punishment altogether or impose some other penalty unless they find that there has been a substantiat non-compijance of the rules of procedure or a gross violation of rules of natural justjce which has caused prejudice to the employee and has resulted in miscarriage of justice or the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the grava men of the charge." 6) Here in the instant case various serious charges have been levelled againstthe appeliant andthose charges have notonly been proved under departmental enquiry, but also have been admitted by the appeliant. There appears nothing to estebiish that substantial non-compliance of the rules or procedure or a gross violation of rules of natural justjce, which has 2007 AIR SCW 379 ^ Gowri caused prejudice tothe employee, have been committed by the Department. The punishment for such deiiberate misconduct cannot be heid to be shockingty disproportionate. 7) Neither the instant appeal in law is maintainable nor on merit there is any substance to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the iearned Singte Judge dismissing the writ petition. 8) For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeai being devold of substance deserves to be dismissed summarily and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs. / Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge