1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB. CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritJ'etitlon Wo. 2018 of 1998 PETITIONER: I.- V; RESPONDENTS: Rajendra Kuinar Shrivasteva, aged about 54 years, aon of Late Shri L. L. Shrivastava, resideat of Opposite "C"- l,Krantmagar, Bilaspur. -Versus- Depuly Managing Du'ector aad Corporate Developiaent Ofiicer - AppeUate Aufhority, State Bank of India, Central Office, P. B. Nd. 12, Mumbal-400021. Chief (Seneral Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Of&ce, Hoshaagabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.). Cteneral Manager (DNPB), State Bank oflndia, Local Head Of&ce, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal(M,P.}. POST FOR ORDER ON 26t11 SEPTEMBER. 2003 SdA L.C. Bhadoo Judge l 4 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitioa No. 2018 of 1998 PETITIONER: Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 54 years, sonofLate Shri L, L, Shrivastava, resident of Opposite "C"- 1, KraTitinflgar, Bilaspur, -Versus- RESPONDENTS: Deputy Managiag Director and Corporate Developnient Officer - AppeUate Authority, State Baak of India, Central Office, P. B. No. 12, Mumbai-400021, Chief General Manager, State Baak of India, Local Head OS&ce, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.). Oeneral Maaager (DNPB), State Bank oflndia, LocalHead OfBce, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.). Sbri Rohit Aiya, counsel for fhe petitioner, Shri. P. Diwakar, couiisel for the Respondents. Before: Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadooi, J. ORDBR (Passed oujt^£fcSepteinber, 2003) 1. The petitioner has filed ttus writ petition under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India questiorung the legality, validity and propriety of the iinpugned reversion order dated 13th Noveiuber, 1995 by which the petitioner has been brought down by 25 stages from his existing basic pay i.e. fixim Rs. 9950 to Rs.4250. 2. The facts leadiug to fflmg ofthis writ petition are that fhe petitioner joiued fhe State Bank of India as Clerk ou. 10ih October 1967 after selection ffarough a competitive examiaation and he was confirmed on. tfae said post on 10th April 1968. Thercafter he was promoted as OfBcer .Tnninr Manageiaent iu December 1976 aad as MMGS-II in K-; 2 ^ .-^' '•s.- i-\ X-. .4 August 1988. As per fhe petitioner he eamed promotions iu due course oftime and during his service career he ahyays worked to fhe best ofhis ability and he had been awarded number of appreciation letters for his comnieadable service in the Baak ia fhe field of deposit mobilization, securing 'weU run' ratiug for Janjgir Branch aiid Kirandul Brauch duriag his tenure frcim 15111 Deceiaber, 1988 to 31"t May, 1990 and 1.6.1990 to 8.11.1993. However for the period when he was workmg at Jaajgir and Kiraiidul the petitioner was served wifh a chai^e-sheet dated 25th Jauuary, 1993 which was received by him on 20th March, 1993, by which two charges were leveUed agamst the petitioner ' that the petitioner without verLfying/examiamg fhe power of attomey to ascertain whether its holder was authorized to opeu a curreat account in. the firm s name with fhe Branch at Janjgir as weU as the said power of attomey ought to have beeu confirmed with the partnership deed. The second charge relates to fhe petitioner's own loaa account wherein though admittedly the account was regulaiized but fhe cause of delay has been made as a basis of charge. The charge-sheet is Aanexure P/3. 3. In reply to fhe chai^es tlie petitioner filed his reply on 19th April 1993. Petitidher's further case is that the Enquuy Of&cerwithout •» foUowing tiie procedure as envisaged ia the State Bank of ludia, Of&cers Conduet Rules held the petitioner gtulty for bofh fhe charges. The petitioner has furfher mentioned that the conclusions reached by the AppeUate Authority in its order dated 13t11 October 1996; the appeal was also disinissed by fhe appeUate authorily. The petitiouer also filed a review before the Review Committee that was ~ also dismissed, The enquiiy was conducted without foUQwing the procedure as envisaged ia Rule 68 of the State Baak of ludia^ 3 ••^,- ^ K Officers Service Rules. Therefore, fhe enquiiy is vitiated an.d he farther requested that a writ of certiorari and maadamus be issued for quastung fhe impugned oider reveriiag to the petitioner. 4. Retum has been filed on. behalf of the respondents ia which it has been submitted fhat it is iacorrect to say that the charges leveUed agauist the petitioner are not proved aad that no loss has been caused to fhe respondent/Baak, the findiugs rendered by the Inquiring Authority and Disciplmaiy Authority are correct, a reasonabte opportunily of defeuce was given to fh.e petitioner. The petition.er was aa Officer in Middle Maaagement Grade Scale-II cadrc of the respondent/Bank. During his period he permitted opeiung ofa current account on 31*t March 1989, OVL the basis ofa power of attomey executed by one Dinesh Kuniar Agarwal, one of the partners of the firm ia fa.vour of one Balbhadra Prasad Mittal. The petitioner failed to examine the power of attomey to ensure whetlier or not tiie said attomey was authorized to open accouut iu. fhe nam.e of the firm. He further faUed to insist upon obtaming fhe partnership deed to ensure that the partaers ofthe firm werc jointly and' severaUy authorized to execute the said power of attomey. Subsequen.Uy it transpired fhat the partnership deed did not contam any provision authorizing aay one partner to execute such power of attomey on behalf of fh.e finn, The petitioner aUowed tamsfer of Rs. 43,000/- on 31" March, 1989 aud Rs. l,2^,ll0/- on 31at March, 1990 from. the ciUTent account ofthe firca at the risk of said attoruey. These amounts were credited to the cash crcdit accouiit of aaother finn M/s Maa Bamleshwari Service Station despite of fhe fact that he kuew that Batbhadra Prasad Mittal aud ~ Ttlohaalal Agarwal, proprietor of M/s Maa Bamleshwan Service Station are_real brothera aud the former was holding the power of <. — < ^ X. attomey ofMohanlal Agarwat. Thus, the petitionerwas uistruiaental in pennitting diversiou of funds from finn's account at the request of the said unauthorized power of attoraey holder. The partners of the fimi challenged ffcie above payinent to fhe tune of Rs. 1,72,110/ - inade by the petitioner by debiting to their firm's currcnt account to third party and the Baak was likely to be dr^ged iato Ut^atkin. 5. The petitioner while worMng as Manager, Personal Banking Division at Kirandul Branch enjoyed overdraft facilily in his cunTent account agamst the securi.ly of National Savings Certificates which were pledged with the Bauk. The petitioner prepared a letter on 6.4.1992 addressed to the Post Master Savuigs BaiLk, Bilaspur through Branch Maaager, Sarkaada Braach, Bilaspur requestmg to make payineut of the National Saving Certi&cates. He also CQUected Rs, 9,l35/- inclusive of intercst on the State Baak oflndia, Sarkaada Branch, Bilaspur. These documents were not sent to the Sarkanda Branch by registered post iastead the petitioner persouaUy carried the envelope aud coUected fh.e proceeds of the National Savm.gs Certificates fium the Post Master, BUaspur on 20.4.1992 after obtaining release letter from the Braach Maaager, Sarkanda Bilaspur iu his favour by m-terepresenting fhe facts to him. By coUectiug proceeds of the Natioual Saviugs Certificates in cash by misrepresenting fhe facts aad retamiag the proceeds fhereof with hnn and by not depositiug the ftdl proceeds with the Bank, the petitioner exposed himselfto lack of mtegrity. 6. The Disciplinaiy Auftiority was uot satisfied by the reply submitted by the petitioner aud proceeded for departmental enquity. The Efiquiring Authorily after examuuiig ttie witaesses aad documents - reached to fhe conclusion that the chai^es leveUed against fh.e petitioner stand proved aud after enquiiy the DiscipUnaiy Authority^ -^f, 5 '<< <, has rightly punished the petitioner. It is incorrect to say that the proper procedure in the enquiiy was not foUowed, therefore the petition be rejected. 7.1 have heard Mr. Rohit Aiya leamed counsel for fhe petitioner aad Mr. P. Diwakar leamed counsel for the respondent/Banlc. 8. Coiuisel for the petitioner Mr. Aiya argued fhat the enquiry officer had not conducted fhe enquiry ia accordance wifh disciplmaiy rules aad he had also uot foUowed the priuciples of natural justice. He submitted that fhe Enquinng Ofi&cer did not supply the documents deinanded by the petitioner aud ttie docuinents were taken at a very later stage in & pieceineat. He further afgued that iu order to prove fhe Charge No. 1 no witaess was examined by the department and the Enquiry OfEcer had not examiaed the petitioner as per clause (4) sub-Rule (2) ofRule 68. 9. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regardnig exercise of powers of judicial review by fh.e H^h Court under the writ jurisdiction in the case ofB.C. Chat'invedl Vs. Union of ladia and others reported ia (1995} 6 SCC 749 is that fhe High Court whfle exercising judicial review camiot take his decision as a Court of appeal but certainly can review fhe marmer m which tbe decision was made. The scope ofjudicial rcview is ineaat to ensure that the individuat receives fair treatment aad not to eusure that the conclusiou which the-authority reaches is necessarily correct io. the eye of fhe Court. When an inquuy is conducted on chai^es of inisconduct by a public servaat, the Court is concenied to determine whefher the uiquuy was held by a coiapetent ofiicer or wheliier rules of natural justice arc compUed wifh. Whether fhe " iuidiags or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authorily ^ entrusted with fhe power to hold iaquiiy has jurisdiction, power aad -s- ••4 lll, z authority to reach a findiag of fact or conclusion. But fhe finding m.ust be based on soine evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act uor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinaiy proceediug. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence caiuiot be permitted to be caavassed before the Court. When the authority accepts the evidence aad the conclusiou rcceives support there from, the disciplmary auffaorily is entitled to hold that the delmquent ofifcer is guilty of fhe charge. The disciplmaiy authorily is the sole judge of facts. Wherc appeal is » . presen.ted, the appeUate authority has coextensive power to re- appreciate fhe evidence or the nature bf puiushiaent. The court in its power ofjudicial review does uot act as appeUate authority to re- apprcciate the evidence and to anive at its own indepeudent finduigs on the evidence. The Court may interfere where the authority held the proceediags agam.st fhe deluiquent of&cer in a macmer inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or io. violation of statutory rules prescribing the niode of inquuy or wherc ,the conclusion or finding rcached by the disciplinaiy authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court may jnterfere with the conclusion. or the finding. 10.In the matter of State of R^jasthan Vs. B.K. Meeaa Mtd others, reported iu JT 1996 (8) SC 684 Hon'ble Apex Coiirt has held that ia case of discipluiary euquuy the technical rules of evidence have no appUcation. The doctriue of "proof beyond doubf^ has no application Prcponderance of probabflities aud some materials on record arc necessary to amve at the conclusion whether or not the - delmquent has committed misconduct.*' Hon'ble Apex Gourt agsdn. iu the matter of LaUt Popli Vs. Caaara Baak & Others reported ^&s-' 7 ) \ \. JT 2003 (5) SC 494 has held that "While exercismg jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution fhe High Court does not act as an. appellate authorily. Its jurisdiction is circum.scribed by lumts of judicial review to correct errora of law or procedural en-ors leaduig to manifest injusttce or violatton of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of fhe case on nierits as an appellate authority^. ll.In the matter ofB.C. Chrturvedi (Supra) Honlale Apex Court has held that the scope of judicial review by the Court is of decision making process and where fhe findm.gs ofthe discipliaaiy authority is based on some evidence the Court or Tribunal camiot re- appreciate ttie evidence or substitute its own finding. Agaia in the matter ofR.S. Saiai Vs. State 6f Pui(Jab and others rcported ia JT 1999 (6) SC 507 ia paragraph 16 it has been held that "Before adverting to the first contention appellant regaTding want of material to estabUsh the charge, and of non-appUcation ofmm.d, we wiU have to bear m..miad the rule fhat the Court while exercisinf writ jurisdiction wiU iiot reverse a fia.ding of the inquimig aufhority on the ground that the evidence adduced beforc it is insuf&cient. If there is some evidence to reasonably support fhe coiiclusion ofthe inquiriug authorily, it is not the fuuction of the coitrt to review the evidence and to arnve at its OWD. independent finding. The iaquinng authority is the solejudge ofthe fact so long as there is some fcgal evidence to substantiate the findiag aud fhe adequacy or reliabitity of the evideuce is not a matter which cau be permitted to be caavassed before the court ia writ proceediags. 12. Ndw, coraiag to the question of forwaixiiug of documents as per the - Rule 68 (2) (v) is conceraed, a list ofdocuments by which and list of witnesses by whoin the articles of charge are proposed to ~.\ iliiiijliwiii- — E'; \ ^ J; ^^ substaatiated as per the clause-vi are required to be forwarded by the disciplmary authority to fhe Enquity Officer along with other docuiaents. A note has beeu appended to this rule that fhe forwardiag of the docuiueuts referred to ia this clause need not necessarily be done simultaiieously. Therefore, the relevant docuinent, as per this note, can be produced at the tune of fhe f enquiry and moreover, ia this case docuinents which were produced by the presenting ofEcer before the Enquuy Officer pertains to baiik rccord aad these docuinents were submitted in fhe presence ofthe petitioner aud as per the defence copies of aU. the 27 documents were given to the petitioner. The petitioner had opportunity to exaDune those dociiments and it is not the case of fhe petitioner that the copy of each and eveiy docuiaent which was asked by him was not suppUed to him. Therefore, I am of the view that not sending the docuuients to the Enquiry Officer at the iaitial stage and submitting the docuinents durmg tfae enquuy has not in aay manner prejudiced the rightofthe petitiouer, More over a perusal of fhe proceediags of fhe enquiiy dated 30th November, 1993 shows that fhe petitioner hunself ia spite of the request m.ade by fhe Enquuy OfBceron behalfoffhe request ofthe Presentmg Of&cer has not admitted or denied the docuiuents. Eveu the parties were aUowed to iaspect fhe ddcuiuents iu Bilaspur of&ce as weU as at Sarkanda aad Jaajgir Branch of the Bank and even the Enquiry Of&cer has recorded fhat ftie attitude of fhe OfBcer was non- cooperative aad he refused to receive the documents. Therefore, by no stretch ofimagmation it caa be said that the docuineuts were uot suppUed to the petitioner particularly when the attitude of the petitioner was non-cooperative. Therefore, I do not fiud auy substanceja the arguments offhe petitfonfir, \ 'S^Ty -•9 13. A perusal of the enquuy report reveals ttiat the charge No.l was based prunarily on the documentaiy evidence. The petitioner beins a Baak Manager without examiniag the partnership deed simply based on the power of attomey aUowed the account to be opened in. the name of M/s Jai Rani Sati Transport and Construction Coinpaay. The petitioner did uot examine the partnership deed Ex. P/13 and partnership letter Ex, P/14 to ascertain as to wheftier it coutams any provision authorizing aay one of its partnera to execute auy power of attomey on Eehalf of the firm. or not. It has been clearly mentioned that even the petitioner adinitted before the enquiry officer fhat the account was opened ou fhe strength of the power of attoruey Ex. P/ 15. The scrutiny of the power of attonuey aad ofher related papers were uot done by the Accountaat, Pield OfScer aud Desk Officer ofttie Braach. The Enquity Officer reached to fhe conclusion that fhe petitioaer was negligeiit and he committed fhe lapse in atlovring to open au account merely on the basis of the power of attomey wifhout examinmg the partnerahip deed. More over the petitioner aHowed the transfer ofthe amount of Rs.43,000/- and Rs. 1,29,110/- from the current account of the to the cash credit account of M/s Maa Bamleshwari Service Station. The partners of the firm objected to the trausfer of money aad fhe matter reached to the filing ofthe Ut^atioD., The petitioner iself admitted'above facts before the Euquiiy Ofi&cer and more over this charge was based on the documents and the documents were produced iu fhe enquuy in. the presence of the petitioner, therefore it canuot be said that this charge was uot proved. As far as the argum.ent of fhe learaed counsel for the petitioner that the ~ documeuts are not proved by any witaess, fhercfore, the documents produced in enquiry cannot be considercd as proved. lu. this, -V.C- x T . '*- ) u... comiection, if we look into the provisions of Baakers' Books Evidence Act 1891, ia Sectiou-4, it has been prescribed thafc- "Subject to tlie provisions ofthis Act, a certifled copy of aay entty h* a baakers' book shall in aU legal proceedlags be received as prlma facle evidence of the existence of sucli eatry, and shall be admittedas evldence of the matters, transaetions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, aud to the same extent as, the ori^nal entry itseU is aow by law admissible," Therefore, io. view of this provision, the eutries of account books of the bank are prima facie evidence and not required to be proved by the oral evidence. Thercfore, I do not fiiid aay substance in the argument ofthe leamed couusel for tfae petttioner. 14.As far as the charge No.2 is concei-ued that ifelates to the encashinent of N.S.C. by the peti.tion.er which were pledged iu the Baak as a seciuily. This charge is ahnost admitted by the petitioiier tself and even leamed counsel for the petitioner durmg the course ofai^umeiit submitted fhat fhe amountwhich was in. cashed by fhe petitioner concenung fhe N.S.C. was deposited by fhe petitioner after lapse of 60 days because the petitioner fell ffl. But the conduct of the petitiouer was not just and proper as he got forwarded the letter to the Bank Massvgei Sarkaada Branch. When the N.S.C. were pledged by him with the Sank as seciuity against cash credit limit then he was not required to take fhe N.S.C. personaUy and eucash fhem and keep the amouat with him.. He ought to have allowed fhe Baak to eucash those N.S.C. and thereafter the ainount ought to have been remamed in the Bank itself. Whereas, the petitioner himself being a responsible of&cer eucashed the amouiit and kept the amoiuit with 1iim, therefore the Enquiry Officer has righfly held that the Charge No.2 was also proyed agaiust the petitioner and to prove ttus charge two witaesses, ^^f*{^Il!!Bt!^{^^T!-"^S'FTO! w^, ^f^- .^K- .^ei :lai|1aKgaaBi^ '.^dai p3[tE)3p B p3@: peq jsHORitad gq^ 'snottB§3[[B fljcNi)H^3)E^ p^ 83S-reTpi^ <^ ^dMjm 'J^ Aimlmg. • 3t(t ai q}iA 4IB3p piie paispFSHOO ai3A .isaopii.ad stp. Aq pasiBi ^^smiiSjBj giy, 'jss^o .itonba^ sq^jo •(-icMlaj arp moig je3{3 si ; T(OtT{M pstiSJB SBM jauem gq). 'Amibiia 3[cyqA Snunp ynasaid jiasmiq SBMJSiioi^itad st^ 'ia&oaioyi •aTtpxrexaABm aquaTp AiBSsaosa spsj si[ ji '38B? sip jo ssoHKtsmnsuTO pttB S^OBJ aip. CTI '.laoigO Amibug 3Tp.jo uopasjosip aq^ si ^i -SSSBO ]r[B in ^iisnbuiiap SHnirexs o'j. .ixxgQ -<imbag aip. joj Aio^BpTiem toit si ^i saHB^sin: ^sjg 310. m 'uoisTAO-id SITp Ofdl 3[00l 3M JI K'TOTq ^SUtBSB 30tt3pTA3 aiff TIt gUUBSddB sgoTrB^smnaito Atre utBidxa a). —[ao^gdsip StqjqBua jo asodind gqt jq: aouspiAS aip ni Tmq ^stirBgB SinjBsddB saoire^sninojio aq^ uo Tmq uot^sanb A{[Ki3a33 <pauiTiiBX3j[3SiirTq4o3^onsBqj3oigo 3TpJIl[BqS pTFB 33U3pIA3 8iq 8380? J33g:0 3Tp .[agG 'A»IU AjUOTpnV Suunibai aqj^, fBEj^ psSesiAua apu snp 'psTuaoiioo ST 89 3IIly stp jp g-aiuiqne jo fiiAx)-3snBio j6 siroisuuMd sq^ .isd SB .i3iiopi)sd aq^ jo HppBimitBxg-uoa alp 36 nopsarib arp. 10^ SIDEIIIOO 'sb^'Q], •ajajiaj.Tii: jo sfBtoaidOB-ai •WtEmB3 vmcQ sip ajojaiaip. 'aoHSpiAS ou jo isffeai B yya si sny, '3Mi3piA3 Are ^noq^iM jS^mS jMiopi^ad sq^ ppq SBq jasgg:o .fiTnbTta aTf^fBTy. SSBO B ^oit ST u •sonspTAa amoe rio pssBq are sSTiipHg slp aai[A AlpS ^H3nBiq[[3p aq} pioq o^ papii.ns si ^uoipnB .£rBTtT[dpsTp aq^ 'msq} mo^ poddns saAiaoai uoisnpiioo pue soraspi&a 3ip s^daooB AjuoTpnB a.iaqM pitB psssBATteo sq cq. psnrousd sq^QTniBO aonapTASjo ^Tpqm];3j:;.i6 3?ti3pTA3jo AwnbapBjo apM Tt3A3 'satmibua gq^ KI A[ddB yau saop ^ov aaiiapiAg ptre sspu jBSiniqoat tBTpi-moO xsflv 3iq<tioH SIR Xq 'aAop pTB{ MB( sip -isd SB 'j3Aoaio^[ •si ·p3Ao.id spTiB^s sS-reqs STp^Bip ppq 8BA^i33Ti3piA3 Arei.uaTCm.oop aip aodn SiiiiSiai.iayB pue uoitnoasaid aip Aq paurtOBxa 3J3A ^ ^ I-T ~'hW). •12 t.- t», circum.stances; I do not find auy irrcgulanty ia fhe enquiry by uon- examinuig the petitiouer uuder this provision by the Enquuy Officer. The petitioner had already subinitted his reply to charge sheet. Even the appeal ffled by fh.e petitioner against the decision of the enquiry officer was rejected by the appeUate aufhority after consideriag the evideuce on record and more over the review filed by the petitioner was also dismissed, 17. Now coming to the question of the quantum. of the puiiishment, learD.ed counsel for the petitioner argued that no loss has occurred to the Baiik nor it has been proved fhat fhe petitiouer has coinnutted these irregulanties with ulterior inotive or persoual gam. rather the petitioner has received appreciation for iacreasiug the busiaess ofthe Bank and the punishnient imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct ofthe petiitioner. He has been brought down. by 25 stages aad he placed reUance on the decisions ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court reported iu A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 1377 and the other decision of.the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1989 Labour aad Industrial Cases, 1471 and decision of Kerala H^h Court reported in 1998 Labour Law, Kerala 105, 18.0n the other hand, Shri Diwakar argued that the petitioner beiag a seiuor of&cer ofthe bank, he was dealmg with the financial matters and heavy duty was on his shoulder. He coHuiutted serious u-regularities by-atlowing the openiug of accouut on the strcngth of pcwer of attomey without examuung the parfaership deed and he atlowed the traasfer ofamouat of Rs. 1,72,110/-. lu support ofhis arguineuts he placed rcUance on decisions reporied iu JT 2003 (2) SC 78, JT 2003 (5) SC 494 & JT 2003 (2) SC 27 and argued that the discipliaary authorily has awarded the punishment iu m.~^i 3-19 13 \. proportion to the misconduct of the petitioner, therefore, no interference is requu-ed by this Court. In AIR 2003 SUPRBME COURT 1377 in the matter of Kailash Nath Gupta V. Enqufa-y Offlcer (R.K. Rai), AUatiabad Bankaad others, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- "Removal from service on account of certain procedural irregularities - No te^ularity or miscoaduct by deliuqueat officer la the long past Service except charges in question - SmaU advances became irrecoverabte due to procedural irregularity however no evldeace to show that h^, eitlier misap^-opriated any money or had comiaitted any fraud - Loss caused to banh could be recovered from deUnqueat- Procedural teegnlarity caaaot be tetaied as ae^^ence to warrant extreme punishmeat of disaiissal froia seeviee." High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of G.A. Sarma Vs. The Chairmaa Syndlcate Banb and others repQrted iu 1989 LAB. I.C. 1471 held that- "DeUaquent, a baak ofiHcial committine ceitaln irtegularities in sanctloaiag loan and thus violatliig provisions- No evidence that baak suffered aay fiaanctal loss thereby- Punisliment of removal of delinquent - Dtsproportionate to gravity of lapses committed. Smularly, High Cburt of Kerala iu flie matter of State Baak of ladia fii Others Vs. T.J. Paul, Kochi reported in 1988 L.L.J.KBRALA 103 held that- "Respondent for granting loaa irregularly in exccss of his discaetionary power and for violatiag instructions aad dlTectioas in the matter of granting loaa. VIolatioa of Hcad OtRce instructions and negBgence was oaly a niiaor miscoaduct, inajor penalty was aot Justlfled." On fhe other haud, the Hou'ble Apex Court ia the matter of Chairmaa