IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.416 of 2011 2 13.7.2011 Umesh Prasad Jha, S/o Sri Bhola Prasad Jha, Resident of village- Rahua, P.S. Rosera, District Samastipur (Bihar) …. Petitioner/ Appellant VERSUS 1. The Chairman, UCO Bank, 10 Barebourne Road, Kolkata, West Bengal 2. The Managing Director, UCO Bank, 10 Barebourne Road, Kolkata, West Bengal 3. The General Manager (Personnel Service) UCO Bank, Head Office- 2, Personal Service Department, 3 & 4D, D Block, Sector No.1, Salt Lake, Kolkata (West Bengal) 4. The Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Block- A, 4th Floor, Mauryalok Complex, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-1 (Bihar) ….. Respondents/ Respondents --------- For the appellant : M/s B.N.Sinha “Suman” with Abhay Shankar Singh, Advocates For the Bank : Mr Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Adv. -------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent Bank. Two charges which were subject matter of disciplinary proceeding against the appellant, a bank officer, were found proved in part leading to imposition of punishments which are major in nature. There are no lapses in concluding the proceeding on the basis of a proper enquiry. - 2 - Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that at least the quantum of sentence needs to be reduced because even if the appellate order is taken to be correct, the disbursement of loans in question is only likely to cause loss of Rs.26,53,964 and it is not a case where the loss estimated has already been caused to the Bank. Judicial interference with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is justified only where the punishment is found to be so excessive compared to the gravity of the charges that the judicial conscience is shaken. We have looked into the charges and their nature. They relate to disobedience of instructions in disbursing loans even after the power to do so was seized. Even if there has been no actual loss so far, the likelihood of loss on account of such action can justify even a major punishment because the appellant is in Bank service and it is imperative in such a service that financial matters are decided and carried out in accordance with directions from the higher authorities. - 3 - In the facts of the case, we find no good reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)