1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1634 OF 2009 Shri Shashi Mohan Singh. ..Petitioner. v/s. Bank of India & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.C.J.Shah i/b. H.N.Associates for Petitioner. Mr.R.S.Pai a/w Renuka Lele i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co. for Respondent No.1. CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR,CJ. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED :- AUGUST 31, 2009. P.C. 1. The Petitioner was an Official of Bank of India who was working in the capacity of Staff Officer, at Andheri (West) Branch, Mumbai North Zone, Mumbai. The Respondent No.1 is Bank of India(referred to as the Bank) charged him by serving a Articles of Charge dated 24th March, 2006. The charges related to causing considerable financial loss as the Loans were extended without proper verification and in violation to Bank’s Regulations. It was specifically stated that the loan were disbursed in gross violation of Bank’s norms and without assessing the completed construction 2 work, further loans were disbursed which was a serious financial loss to the Bank. The inquiry officer vide its report dated 22nd August, 2007 returned the findings that all the articles of charges except Charge No.4 were proved. After giving opportunity to the Petitioner to file reply on the inquiry report in accordance with the law, the concerned authorities passed order dated 21st March, 2008 awarding the Petitioner major penalty of “Compulsory Retirement” from service in terms of Regulations 4(h) of Bank of India Officer Employees(Discipline and appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Petitioner after receiving this order applied for review before the authority which then passed a detailed order dated 17th December, 2008 dealing with all the contentions of the Petitioner. 2. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of all these orders. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner primarily contended that all the proposals made by him were approved by the Branch Manager and he has taken all the care, that was required to be taken. Further, it is contended that the Article of Charges had not been proved and there is hardly any evidence to substantiate the same. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank while relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of Bank of India and ors. 3 V/s. T. Jogram reported (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 236 contended that judicial review in such matters has very limited scope. 3. In our opinion, the irregularities committed by the Petitioner were found to be serious misconduct by the Authorities concerned and there is no violation of principles of natural justice and as such the Court should be loath to interfere with the order of punishment. The Counsel for the Petitioner criticised the opinion recorded by the Authorities on the ground that the evidence was sufficient and there was conflict in the findings recorded by the Authorities. We are unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner as we are not sitting here as a Court of Appeal. On the evidence adduced before the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer returned the finding stating that the charges were proved except Article of charge No. 4 and this was done on the basis of evidence produced. The Petitioner was provided opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Bank for substantiating his stand. Findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority which imposed compulsory retirement and in order of Review dated 17th December, 2008, the contentions raised have been dealt with in detail, which order runs into about closely typed 13 pages. The Authorities have returned findings that 4 there is serious loss and detriment to the bank and the allegations have been proved. However, it still did not order severe punishment, but only compulsory retirement. 4. We are of the considered view that authorities concerned have shown just and fair approach and not even ordered recovery of any amount from the Petitioner towards loss caused to the Bank. We do not consider it proper to interfere with the imposition of the punishment as well as quantum of punishment. The Petition disposed of with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.KHANWILKAR, J