CWP No. 20912 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20912 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.11.2010 Lal Chand ...... Petitioner Versus State Bank of Patiala and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. J.K.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition challenges the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner. The order has been passed after holding full inquiry. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal which was duly considered and dismissed by a speaking order. Subsequent to that the petitioner filed a mercy appeal which has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for the same. The only argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was found guilty only in his capacity as a Supervisory Officer but the persons who actually made the entries which were allegedly not checked by the petitioner, were not proceeded against. No such plea has been taken before the disciplinary authority or before the punishing CWP No. 20912 of 2010 2 authority or the Appellate Authority. Apart from that no infirmity has been brought out in the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner was given full opportunity to present his case. In the circumstances the finding of fact i.e. the guilt of the petitioner cannot be looked into by this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad and another vs. P.Kata Rao, 2008(3) SCT 153, has clearly held that superior courts exercise a limited jurisdiction in interfering with a finding of fact arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. The second argument is with regard to the punishment. It is urged that the petitioner should have been imposed any higher punishment. In the case of Union of India and another vs S.S.Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “.... The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, is very limited. The Court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case, the Court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case, in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty......” In the present case amounts of one account older of the employer bank were wrongly credited to another account holder. In these circumstances it is not possible for this Court to come to a conclusion that the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. CWP No. 20912 of 2010 3 Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 25, 2010 sunita