ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.DPS/R-II/No.645 dated 20.11.2002 issued by the 1st respondent, as confirmed in proceedings No.DPS/DGM/55, dated 15.4.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, particularly when the criminal case in C.C.No.50 of 1993 dated 10.7.2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikalur ended in acquittal; and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. The facts are not much in dispute. It appears, at the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as Messenger in the State Bank of India, Kaikalur branch, Krishna district. While that being so, a criminal prosecution was launched against him and others in C.C.No.50 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikalur, Krishna district. The petitioner was shown as Accused No.2. The charge against the petitoner was that he had conspired with Accused Nos.1 and 3 in issuing bank drafts, which were encashed by a third party deceitfully. During the pendency of criminal proceedings, petitioner was kept under suspension by an order dated 3.9.1990. However, the said criminal case ended in acquittal on 10.7.2000. Though the petitioner made representation for his reinstatement into service, the respondents did not act upon the same and instead of reinstatement, the petitioner was continued under suspension and he was proceeded with departmentally. A charge sheet dated 15.3.2002 has been issued to the petitioner enumerating the following charges: 1. It is reported that you have opened a S.B. account with Andhra Bank, Kaikalur on 17.4.1999 without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. 2. It is reported that you have given introduction to Shri A.Ranga Raju to facilitate him to open a S.B. account with Andhra Bank, Kaikalur resulted in a loss of Rs.8,88,704.30 to the Bank(SBI). After conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner, he was imposed with punishment of dismissal from service by an order dated 20.11.2002 of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the second respondent. However, the second respondent refused to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent and rejected the appeal of the petitoner by an order dated 15.4.2003. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the charges in the criminal case as well as in the domestic enquiry and the witnesses examined before the Criminal Court and in the domestic enquiry are one and the same. Therefore, once the petitioner was acquitted by a competent Criminal Court, on the very same evidence, the petitioner cannot be held to be guilty even in the domestic enquiry. Further, assuming that there is some misconduct on the part of the petitoner, punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct, alleged against him. Practically, there was no loss caused to the respondent-Bank nor there was any finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in this regard. Even the appellate authority failed to take these facts into consideration and erroneously confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which does not stand the scrutiny of law. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent-Bank strenuously contended that the petitioner had committed misconduct of introducing A.Ranga Raju to Andhra Bank for enabling him to open an account which enabled the Accountant to manipulate certain demand drafts and the said Ranga Raju claimed the same through Andhra Bank, resulting in a loss to a tune of Rs.8,80,000/-. Therefore, the misconduct attributed against the petitioner cannot be said to be either minor or trivial in nature, nor the punishment imposed can be said to be shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The Bank is the custodian of public money; and loss is not the criteria, but the act of the petitioner in introducing a third party to another bank, is nothing short of doubtful integrity, which ultimately resulted in loss caused to the Bank. Therefore, no sympathy can be extended to such persons whose acts resulted in huge financial loss to the bank. The learned counsel further relied on judgments in LALIT POPLI v. CANARA BANK AND OTHERS[1], SURESH PATHRELLA v. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE[2] and T.N.C.S.CORPN. LTD. AND OTHERS[3] bringing to the notice of the Court as to the limited and scope of judicial review in a case of this nature. There cannot be any dispute as to the proposition laid down in the said judgments and the scope of judicial review, but the fact remains that the sum and substance of the charge framed against the petitioner was that he had introduced one Ranga Raju who opened a S.B. account with Andhra Bank, Kaikalur on 17.4.1999 without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority. That means, petitoner is not supposed to introduce any person to open a bank account with a Bank without obtaining prior permission of the officials of the State Bank of India, Kaikalur. Admittedly, petitioner is a Messenger and he may not be knowing many niceties. Petitioner was asked to give introduction to facilitate a third party to open the bank account. Insofar as the second charge that due to his introduction of A.Ranga Raju to facilitate him to open a S.B. account with Andhra Bank, Kaikalur, without verifying his credentials, there was a loss of Rs.8,88,704.30 to the State Bank of India, is concerned, I am of the opinion that the petitioner gave introduction of A.Ranga Raju for opening a S.B. account in good faith since the said person was a novice to that place. The enquiry officer while submitting his report has categorically stated; “the loss of Rs.8.88 lacs was not proved by presenting officer. It remains a fact that the charge sheeted employee has given his introduction to Shri A.Ranga Raju to open an account in a fictitious name with Andhra Bank, Kaikalur irrespective of the loss incurred by the Bank or otherwise, although it is a open fact the Bank sustained a loss of Rs.8.88 lacs. Hence, I hold the charge as proved”. This in my considered opinion is not a correct approach made by the enquiry officer holding the petitioner as guilty of charge No.2. Absolutely there is no other evidence directly to connect the activities of the petitioner in introducing a third party to Andhra bank and that of the loss caused due to theft and manipulation of demand draft of the SBI, which was claimed through Andhra Bank. Thus, the only misconduct committed by the petitioner seems to be that he has introduced an unknown person for opening S.B. account in another bank. May be, petitioner was trapped by some persons who are highly calculative to avoid their own involvement in the transactions. Be that as it may, from the charge as well as the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it does not inspire the confidence of the Court to uphold the decision made by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority in dismissing the petitioner from service. I am of the opinion that the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Generally speaking, in a case of this nature, it is always better to remand the matter for reconsideration to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment against the petitioner. But the proceedings commenced against the petitioner in the year 1999, and he had been out of employment for (9) long years, therefore, I am of the considered view that putting back the petitioner in the hands of respondents may not be desirable, as the charges are trivial in their nature. The lis can be given a quietus here itself by modifying the punishment imposed. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 20.11.2002 passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 15.4.2003 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. To meet the ends of justice, the respondents are directed to impose punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner. Further, petitioner shall be reinstated into service forthwith. However, the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages and other attendant benefits from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement, of course, entitled for continuity of service. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 25.3.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.2760 of 2004 25.3.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2760 of 2004 Between: Ch.Venkata Narayana, s/o.Sesha Dasu, S.B.I., Agricultural Development, Kaikulur, Krishna District, (under orders of dismissal from service) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority State Bank of India, Region-II, DP Section, Zonal Office Vijayawada. 2 The Appellate Authority, Deputy Geneeral Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings No.DPS/R- II/No.645, dated 20.11.2002 issued by the 1st respondent as confirmed in proceedings No.DPS/DGM/55, dated 15.4.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, since the charges levelled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings as well as in the Criminal Trial in C.C.No.50 of 1993 dated 10.7.2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikulur (which was ended in acquittal of the petitioners) are one and the same and declare the same as void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits, such as arrears of salary, fixation of seniority, etc.,. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO FOR R1&2 The Court made the following : [1] (2003) 3 SCC 583 [2] (2006) 10 SCC 572 [3] (2006) 2 SCC 255