pvr 1 wp1970-94 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1970 OF 1994 Jatin J.Rangnekar. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Central Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents --- Ms.Smita Gaidhani, for Petitioner. Ms.Kher with Ms.Pallavi Dedhia i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 14th October, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Zonal Manager imposing punishment of reduction to lower grade as a punishment for proved misconduct. The petitioner was in the service of Respondent no.1 Bank as Sub- Accountant. A chargesheet was served on him dated pvr 2 wp1970-94 30.1.1992 levelling several charges. A disciplinary inquiry was held into those charges. The Inquiry officer held that all the charges except Charge nos.2 and 6 are proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer of imposing penalty of reduction to lower grade. The disciplinary authority has also held that he will be entitled to the difference between subsistence allowance drawn by him and the salary he would have otherwise drawn during suspension period, and that the period spent under suspension will not be counted for increment. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority maintained the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The petition is directed against both the order i.e. (i) order passed by the disciplinary authority and (ii) order passed by the appellate authority. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for pvr 3 wp1970-94 petitioner submitted that the Inquiry officer did not summon defence witness like the CBI Officer whom the petitioner wanted to examine in his defence. She also submitted that authority higher than the disciplinary authority has issued the chargesheet and the punishment has also been imposed by the authority higher than the disciplinary authority. She also submitted that on the merit of the charges the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have not been considered by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents. She took us through the record and submitted that most of the charges levelled against the petitioner were admitted by him. So far as the first submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that the disciplinary authority had no control over the CBI officer whom the petitioner wanted to pvr 4 wp1970-94 examine as his witness and the disciplinary authority had told him that as he is not in their control, they cannot summoned that witness, however, if the petitioner produces the witness before the Inquiry officer, they can be examined as witness. In our opinion, as the witness was not under the control of the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry officer could not have procure presence of that witness. If the petitioner wanted to examine him as his witness, he was free to do so and therefore, the stand taken by the Inquiry officer cannot be faulted. So far as the second submission is concerned, the officers higher in rank than the petitioner were also being chargesheeted alongwith the petitioner and therefore, the Authority which was competent to impose punishment on the higher officer also can issue chargesheet. We do not find any illegality in this connection. It is to be seen that the authority which is lower in rank than the disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment, but there can be no prohibition on higher pvr 5 wp1970-94 authority doing so. So far as the charges on merits are concerned, we find that the charges levelled against the petitioner who was working in a Bank, were of very serious nature. The disciplinary authority has passed a detailed order considering the evidence on record for recording its findings. The Appellate Authority has also passed a detailed order considering the evidence on record. As a Writ Court, we cannot re-appreciate the evidence and record a different finding than the one which is recorded by the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority. We also find substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that most of the allegations that are made against the petitioner were admitted by him. One of the charges levelled against the petitioner was that he was directed by his superior to keep papers relating to an account in his safe custody, but he handed over those papers to CBI officer by name Mr.N.K.Baria without seeking authorisation from the superior officer. That pvr 6 wp1970-94 charge has been admitted by the petitioner. The only explanation given by him is that Mr.Baria is a very honest officer of CBI. A complaint was lodged by the bank regarding fraud that was discovered with CID and therefore, the Bank wanted the offence to be investigated by CID. However, the petitioner on his own could not have handed over documents to Mr.N.K.Baria. One of the charges held proved against the petitioner is that he permitted payment of cash against a cheque which was crossed cheque and was of account payee, and this was permitted by the petitioner not on once but twice and the only explanation given by the petitioner was that the account-holder has not made any complaint. But this is obviously contrary to the well established banking practice. 4. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, as the charges are of serious nature, the punishment that is imposed cannot be said to be excessive or pvr 7 wp1970-94 disproportionate. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, there is no room to interfere with the orders impugned in the petition. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)