WA 37/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING) MR A.K.GOEL HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N.KOTISWAR SINGH JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) [Goel,C J(Actg.)] :- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition( C) No. 109(SH)/20 02 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against the imposition of pen alty of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for one year, for the pr oved misconduct. 2. The appellant was employed in the respondent Bank in the year 1977. In t he year 1999, disciplinary proceedings were drawn up against him on the allegat ion of staying at a place outside from duty in violation of the rules, questio ning the authority of the superior officer in taking administrative decision by writing letter dated 25.5.1999 ; instigating the staff to indiscipline and insu bordination ; not implementing the principle of No work no pay against the em ployees who participated in the strike; not issuing office order for monthly bal ance of Books etc.; sanctioning of loan without following the due procedure. A ccordingly, charged were framed. The appellant denied the charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report which was in favour of the appellant, but the disc iplinary authority vide letter dated 6.4.2001 issued a notice to the appellant of dis-agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary au thority finally held that Charge Nos.1 & 5 were partially proved, charge Nos 2, 3 and 7 were proved and Charge Nos 4 and 6 were not proved. 3. The appellant, being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority filed a writ petition before this Court on the plea that the Zonal Manager wa s not the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and that the findings of the disciplinary authority were based on no evidence. It was also s ubmitted that the other members of the staff were also involved in the protest a nd joined the appellant in writing the letter dated 25.5.1999 on the basis of which the allegation of indiscipline was made and thus the appellant alone coul d not be treated in a discriminatory manner. 4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the findin gs of the disciplinary authority could not be held to be without evidence. Dis cussing the charges, it was held that the charge No.1 pertaining to absence from the place of posting, was rightly held to be proved as the absence from the pla ce of posting was unauthorized and not disputed. As regards the charges of indi scipline and insubordination covered by Charge Nos 2 and 3, the same were clea rly proved. It was also not disputed that the appellant failed to deduct wag es of the staff when they were on strike and did not perform work. Charge No.7 p ertaining to sanctioning of loan without following due procedure of law was also clearly established. The plea of discriminatory treatment could not be accepte d as the appellant was holding a responsible post and he could not be treated as per with subordinate staff. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one question of dis criminatory treatment in imposing the penalty. He submits that letter dated 25. 5.1999 addressed to the Regional Manager, which was stated to be insubordinatio n and indiscipline, was a letter jointly written by the appellant and other memb ers of the staff and in these circumstances, he alone could not be picked up for punishment. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Cou rt in Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd and others vs. Girish Chandra Sa rma, (2007) 7 SCC 206. 7. Learned counsel for the Bank supports the impugned order. He submits tha t the charge against the appellant was not only for indiscipline but also for no t staying at the place of posting, not deducting salary of the employees for the period of strike and sanctioning of loan without following the due procedu re. According, the penalty against the appellant was justified. He further subm itted that the appellant was a higher officer and his misconduct could not be tr eated at par with other employees of the bank. 8. It is clear from the above that the appellant was found guilty not only for indiscipline, but also for other misconduct which findings have been uphel d by learned Single Judge and not challenged before us. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, in exercise of power of judicial review of findings of the disciplinary authority, this Court does not sit in appeal and such findings ar e interfered only when they are based on no evidence and are perverse. Since other charges have also been proved, even if the charge of indiscipline is ig nored, the penalty does not call for any interference. 9. In view of the above, there is no ground to interfere with the view take n by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.