^t^ <:- A ^ • r\ . COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT Corain : GUPTA, CJ. & J. Wrlt No..305 of 2007 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS K.P. Dewangan; aged about 45 years, son of Shri H.P. Devvangan, working as Cashier Cum Cierk, Regiona! Rura! Bank Branch Bade Bhandar (Now transferred to Branch - Laiiunga), Distt. Raigarh (C.G;) Versus 1. The Raigarh Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ralgarh, through - Its Chairman, Head Office, Station Road, Ralgarh (C.G.) 2. Board of Directors, through Charman, the Raigarh Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Raigarh (C.G.) Writ under Clause 1S7 (10|(aif2) ofthe Chhattlsaarh Hiah Court Rules,200S • ' Present: Shri AN Bhakta, counsei for the appeilant. Shri PR Patankar, counsei forthe respondents. JUDGNENT (24th April, 2008) • , . The foliowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Appeliant — KP Dewangan has fiied this writ appeal agajnst the order dated 23.10.2007, passed in WP(S)No.6178/2007. 2 ,3 \u ^-Y ^- 3) Appeliant/petitloner filed a writ petition for the foiiowing reiiefs: "7.1 The entire record of the case be calied for Rind perusai ofthis Hon'bie Court, 7.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindiy be pieased to issue a direction in form mandamus thereby the Respondent authorities be directed to consider the case of petitioner on the point of punlshment, as awarded against Branch Manager (N.P. Sahu) with minor penaity (i.e.wlthholding.oftwo increments with cumuiatlve effect). 7.3 That the other retief, as this Hon'bie Court deems fit and proper be also granted." 4) The appeliant/petitioner In substance was seeking a dlrection to the respondents / Bank authorities to consider the petitioner's case on the quantum of punishment in the context ofthe punishment awarded to NP Sahu - Branch Manager. 5) Appellant - KP Dewangan, at the relevant time, was worklng as Cashier - cum - Clerk at Hamirpur Branch of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Raigarh. A departmentai enquiry was initiated against the appeliant on the charge of misappropriation, In the sald enquiry, the appeliant admitted his guiit and submitted a representation for a ienient view In the rnatter of punishment. The discipi'inary authority vide order dated 31.05.1999 imposed punishment of reverting the appeilant to the lowest stage in the time scaie of the pay (Cashier-cum-Cterk). The departmentai appeal fiied by the appeilant against the said punishment was aiso dismissed. 24 fc r?:i ^ 6) The appellant fited a writ petition, which came to be registered as WP No.499/2002. The said writ petltion was disposed of vide order dated 31st January, 2006 with the following observations in paras 4& 5 ofthe order: "It Is weii settied principies of iaw that this Court white exercising its sxtraordinary jurisdictlon in a petltion filed under Articie 226/227 of the Constitutlon of India shouid refrain itself from interfering with the flndlngs of facts. In the present case the finding of facts as to gul!t ofthe petitioner has been concurrently found by the enqylring authority, dlsciplinary authority as well as the appeilate authority. The punishment Imposed is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. As such, it does not call for any interference with the findings of facts recorded by the authorities below. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioner has admitted his guilt and has prayed for ieniency in awarding the punishment, the respondents may consider the request of the petitioner for modificatlon of the punishment awarded." 7) Aftsr passing of the above order dated 31st January, 2006, the appeiiant again submltted his representation seeklng leniency in the matter of punishment. The concerned authority on reconsideration of the matter took the same view in the matter of punishment and as such, the appeiiant's representatlon was rejected. 8) Chalienging the rejection of the appellant's representation, the appeiiant filed another wrlt petition, which came to be registered as WP(S) No.6178/2007. The said writ ")^ ^e petition stands dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2007, which is the subject matter of this writ appeal. 9) Shri AN Bhakta, Jearned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Bank authorities have discriminated in the matter of punishment imposed against appeiiant - KP Dewangan and NP Sahu - Branch Manager ofthe bank. 10) Appeilant - KP Dewangan admitted his guilt in the departmental enquiry and as such, he was found guiity of misappropriation, whereas, NP Sahu - Branch Manager of the bank was found negligent in discharging his duties as Branch Manager. !n this view of the matter, we are cleariy of the view that the appellant cannot cSaim parity in the matter of punishment with NP Sahu - Branch Manager ofthe Bank. 11) Consldering the gravity of the misconduct (mlsappropriation) found proved against the appeilant, the punishment of reverting the appellant to the lowest stage in the time scale ofthe pay (Cashier-cum-Cjerk) cannot betermed as disproportionate much iess 'Shockingly Disproportionate'. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in the matter. 13) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge padma