K G JANI Vs. STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 785 of 1983. The petitioner in the Special Civil Application is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. The respondent in the Special Civil Application is the first respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal. The second respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal has been subsequently impleaded at the appellate stage. It is better, that we refer to the parties as per their array in the Special Civil Application. The petitioner was hauled up in a disciplinary action for the misconduct of fraudulently altering the medical bill. There was an enquiry conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report. There were numerically two charges practically sounding on the charge of fradulent alteration of the medical bill in different facets. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charge No. 2. With regard to charge No. 1, the enquiry officer upheld it partially. Then the matter came to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority, giving reasons therefor, differed from the views of the enquiry officer on charges No. 1 and held that charge No. 1 was proved in toto and further disciplinary authority accepted the finding of the enquiry officer with regard to charge No. 2. By communication dated 29-1-1982, the disciplinary authority apart from forwarding to the petitioner copies of the finding of the enquiry officer disclosed to the petitioner, its tentative findings on the charges, in unambiguous terms, and also its tentative decision to impose the penalty of dismissal and the disciplinary seniority called upon the petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal. The said communication stands annexed to this judgment of ours as Annexure 'A'. The petitioner replied to the above show cause on 20-3-1982 and a copy of the reply of the petitioner stands annexed to this judgment of ours as Annexure 'B'. The disciplinary authority on 13-10-1982 passed the final decision imposing on the petitioner the penalty of compulsory retirement. The said order stands annexed to our judgment as Annexure 'C'. The petitioner came to this Court impugning the imposition of the penalty by preferring Special Civil Application No. 4331 of 1982 and the said Special Civil Application was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 4-11-1982 in the following terms :

(2.) Thus directed to go by way of a departmental appeal, the petitioner prosecuted the same, that the departmental appeal did not prove fruitful to the petitioner. A copy of the order passed by the departmental appellate authority stands annexed to the present judgment as Annexure 'D'. The petitioner thereafter preferred Special Civil Application No. 785 of 1983 (reported in 1983 (2) GLR 1145.) questioning the disciplinary action and the imposition of the penalty as happened in the above manner.

(3.) The learned single Judge, who dealt with Special Civil Application No. 785 of 1983, as we could see from his order, was asked to hear and deal with only one contention, namely, the propriety of the punishment or in other words the quantum of the punishment imposed on the petitioner. All the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the learned single Judge, as we could see from his order, centered around only this aspect. The learned single Judge examined this plea and held that the punishment awarded cannot be said to be excessive or unjust and ultimately dismissed the Special Civil Application. As already noted, this Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.