Y.K. Nagia vs General Manager, SBOP

Ajay Tewari, J.—The petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceedings culminating into the punishment order vide which he has been reverted to MMGS-II to MMGS-III. The charge against the petitioner was that while working as Branch Manager of the Bandra Branch of the respondent-bank he gave 30 personal segment loans to persons who were not eligible. As per the policy of the bank personal loans could be given to the employees of the public limited companies. He, however, sanctioned personal loans to employees of two private limited companies. One of those companies was found to be a fake company. Keeping these facts and other acts of omission and commission and after a regular inquiry in which full opportunity was granted to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. The impugned order is a speaking order where all the contentions raised by the petitioner have been met. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal which has also been rejected by passing a speaking order. It has been found that the petitioner made no check of the antecedents of the companies to whose employees these loans were sanctioned and that is why the employees of a fake company were also granted loans. In many cases even the pre sanction visit was not made. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. S.S. Ahluwalia, 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 my opinion the present is not a case where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. Petition is dismissed.