THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 11670 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings bearing No.DPD/1047 dated 14.2.1998 of 3rd respondent, whereunder the petitioner was imposed with punishment of ‘reduction in pay by three stages in the timescale i.e. from Rs.8050/- to Rs.7360/-‘, on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Petitioner, while working as a Field Officer in Narayankhed Branch of State Bank of Hyderabad, was found to have committed certain irregularities. Therefore, after completing the formalities, a regular charge sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted. Though all the charges were not proved, petitioner was found guilty against certain charges, therefore, a penalty of reduction in the timescale as noticed above was imposed. Petitioner did not avail any statutory appeal available under the law and filed the present writ petition straightaway, challenging the said proceedings dated 14.2.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner is a Field Officer and the appointing authority against the cadre of Field Officer is Chief General Manager- 2nd respondent, whereas, petitioner was imposed with the major penalty under regulation 67(e) by 3rd respondent – General Manager (Operations), though no such power is vested in 3rd respondent. Further, the punishment of reduction in the pay-scale is unwarranted and disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and proved against him. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents Sri A. Krishnam Raju placed before this Court material to show that the petitioner is in the cadre of MMGS-II and the appointing authority is the General Manager. Earlier it was Chief General Manager, but from 9.7.1996 onwards the power is vested in the General Manager and in this case, admittedly, it is the General Manager (Operations), who had issued impugned proceedings, imposing punishment. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.3 has no power whatsoever to deal with the disciplinary proceedings or to impose major punishment under Regulation 67(e). Further, learned counsel submitted that there is no serious lapse on the part of the management in conducting enquiry or imposing punishment, that the charges framed against the petitioner are very grave in nature and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy to interfere with the order passed by 3rd respondent and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. As is seen from the charges, they are very grave in nature. But, all the charges were not proved and the charges proved are somewhat vague in their nature. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that imposing the punishment of reduction of time-scale by three incremental stages throughout the career of the petitioner may cause injustice to him and it can be called a disproportionate punishment. As of today, the petitioner has already suffered the punishment for more than 12 years. Under those circumstances and also in view of the fact that 12 years have already elapsed, the litigation should be given a quietus at this stage itself by modifying the impugned order dated 14.2.1998, instead of remanding the matter for reconsideration of the disciplinary authority. Thus, the impugned order dated 14.2.1998 is modified to that of reduction in timescale of the petitioner by three incremental stages till 31.12.2009 and, thereafter, the said order shall not be given effect to and the increments of the petitioner shall be restored notionally, otherwise, it will have serious repercussion in the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above modification in the impugned order dated 14.2.1998. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 28-1-2010. MVB.