HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16237 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner was employed in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I of the respondent-bank on 22.02.1987. In the year 1994, he was working at Bodakonda Branch of the bank. The management of the bank transferred him to another branch, vide orders dated 10.12.1994. However, the petitioner did not hand over the charge to his next incumbent on the ground that he has fallen ill, and hospitalized between 21.12.1994 to 24.12.1994 and in spite of his best efforts to hand over the keys of the bank, the superior officers did not make any arrangement. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and charge sheet was issued on 18.03.1997. An Enquiry Officer was appointed through proceedings 31.03.1997. The Enquiry Officer submitted report, dated 17.05.1997, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, the punishment of reduction of basic pay from Rs.3,420/- to Rs.2,940/- in the scale of Rs.2,100- Rs.4,020 and further punishment of deferring the next increment for a period of four months was imposed vide proceedings dated 27.05.1997. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Board of Directors reduced the punishment, to the one of reduction of pay scale to Rs.3,300/-. The deferment of increment was retained. The Revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that at every stage of the enquiry, he was denied the opportunity of being heard and his repeated requests made for granting time to file explanation or for supply of documents thereof, were not accepted. He further contends that once the leave was granted for the corresponding period, during which he was absent, there was no basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The respondents filed counter-affidavit denying all the allegations. According to them, the petitioner adopted all dilatory tactics to avoid participation in the enquiry. Heard Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Udayachala Rao, learned counsel for the respondent-bank. The petitioner, no doubt, was sanctioned leave for the period between 21.12.1994 to 24.12.1994. The fact, however, remains that he did not abide by the orders of transfer. The contents of the charges disclose lack of responsibility on his part. A financial institution like a bank cannot be kept closed on account of the absence of the Manager, that too, after he received orders of transfer. The complaint of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings cannot be accepted. The reason is that at every stage, he invented one ground or the other, for prolonging the enquiry proceedings. Be that as it may, no allegations of either insubordination or of misappropriation of the funds are made against the petitioner. It may be on account of over confidence or wrong advise, that he did not move out, on receiving the orders of transfer. That gave rise to series of allegations. The fact remains that leave was granted for the period during which the petitioner was absent. The inconvenience caused to the respondent on account of the absence of the petitioner should not result in reduction of pay scale for the rest of the career of the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the punishment of reduction of pay scale by one stage to be in force for a period of five years, would meet the ends of justice. The writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the punishment imposed against the petitioner to the one of reduction of pay scale by one stage to be in force for five years from 27.05.1997. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 17th June 2010 dr