LH OF DECD N G KOTECHA vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

Court: Gujarat High Court
Case type: LETTERS PATENT APPEAL
Decided on: 30-03-2026

<div> C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 Reserved On : 09/02/2026 Pronounced On : 30/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 186 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/10824/2004 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 186 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA ========================================================== </div><table><thead><tr><th>Approved for Reporting</th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td></tr></tbody></table><div> LH OF DECD N G KOTECHA & ORS. Versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR BHASKAR TANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR TANNA ASSOCIATES(1410) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3 MS MOHINI BHAVSAR FOR MR BHARAT JANI(352) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== </div><table><thead><tr><th>CORAM:</th><th>HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>and</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA</td></tr></tbody></table><div> CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) Page 1 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Tanna for the appellant and learned advocate Ms. Mohini Bhavsar for learned advocate Mr. Bharat Jani for the respondent. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant- original petitioners challenging the judgment and order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.10824 of 2004 whereby the petition is dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant - original petitioner joined as a Clerk with the respondent bank on 01.07.1952 and lastly, he was promoted as the General Manager. 4. The petitioner was working as Chief Internal Auditor at Ahmedabad in the year 1993 when he Page 2 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 received a memo dated 14.07.1993 calling upon him to submit reply to the alleged procedural lapses committed by him between 19.07.1986 to 19.02.1990 while he was working as Chief Manager, Jamnagar main office. 5. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 12.08.1993 just two months prior to his retirement alleging misconduct due to procedural lapses committed by him. According to the petitioner, there were no allegations about any misappropriation or any financial loss caused to the respondent bank. 6. The petitioner submitted his reply on 23.08.1993. Thereafter two separate corrigendum were issued making minor corrections in the charge-sheet. 7. The defense representative filed written brief on 01.10.1993 on behalf of the Page 3 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 petitioner. 8. The inquiry officer by report dated 21.10.1993 held that the petitioner was guilty of all the charges levelled against him and on the basis of such inquiry report, an order was issued by the respondent bank stating that though the petitioner was retiring on 31.10.1993, he would be continued in service till the departmental proceedings are concluded. 9. The petitioner submitted his reply on 28.10.1993. Thereafter the disciplinary authority by order dated 06.05.1994 imposed the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner. 10. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of disciplinary authority and by order dated 19.01.1995, the appellate Page 4 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 authority confirmed the order of dismissal. 11. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10096/1995 against the order of the appellate authority. 12. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 30.04.2003 and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition in order to make a representation to the appropriate authority. 13. The petitioner preferred representation dated 12.05.2003 which was rejected by the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Bank vide order dated 24.07.2003. 14. The petitioner therefore preferred Special Civil Application No.10824/2004 before this Court which was admitted by order Page 5 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 dated 03.09.2024. 15. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner expired and therefore, his legal heirs are brought on record. 16. The writ petition was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 03.10.2024. The appellants who are the legal heirs of the original petitioner, therefore, have preferred this appeal challenging the impugned order dated 03.10.2024. 17. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Tanna for the appellants submitted that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the original petitioner is grossly disproportionate considering the allegations levelled and allegedly proved during the inquiry proceedings. 18. It was submitted that allegations Page 6 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 levelled in the charge-sheet against the original petitioner are all of procedural nature and there is no allegation against the petitioner that due to such procedural lapses, the respondent bank suffered any monetary loss, or the original petitioner had gained any undue advantage at any point of time from the concerned party. 19. It was therefore, submitted that when the charges levelled against the original petitioner refer to procedural aspects only, without any adverse impact on the respondent bank, then in such circumstances, punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the original petitioner is grossly disproportionate, stigmatic and not commensurating with the charges levelled against the original petitioner. 20. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tanna Page 7 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 submitted that before issuance of the charge- sheet even the Central Office had stated that the inquiry against the original petitioner was non vigilance matter meaning thereby that the charges may not be extremely serious and such aspect has not been considered by the authority while deciding the charges and imposing major penalty of dismissal. 21. It was submitted that the appeal is restricted only with regard to disproportionate penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the original petitioner considering the charges levelled against him and the appellants are not inclined to receive any monetary benefits from the respondent bank. 22. It was submitted that the original petitioner has served for 41 years with the respondent bank and not a single memo was Page 8 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 issued to him much-less charge-sheet or any adverse order during his entire career. 23. It was further submitted that the original petitioner had received various recommendation letters and prizes for exemplary service rendered by him to the respondent bank and in such circumstances, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the fact that the original petitioner could not have been thrown out from the service of the bank on the date of his regular superannuation without any terminal benefits on the ground of having committed procedural lapses which did not result in any monetary loss to the respondent bank. 24. It was therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has been swayed away by the charges as well as withdrawal of earlier writ Page 9 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 petition so as to make the representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent bank regarding disproportionate penalty which does not commensurate with the charges levelled against the original petitioner which are procedural in nature. 25. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge while considering the matter on merits has heavily relied upon documents ME 1/6 and 1/7 which are confession letter of the party and inspection report of the Chief Officer respectively wherein irregularity with regard to inflated stocks have been reflected. 26. It was pointed out by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tanna that none of the charges out of the six charges which are proved against the original petitioner has resulted into any monetary loss to the respondent bank. Page 10 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 27. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tanna invited the attention of the Court to the findings of the Chairman and Managing Director while deciding the representation wherein it is observed that the financial impact of the proven acts of misconduct on part of the original petitioner had been the factor which did not persuade the Chairman as the head of the public sector bank to show any sympathy in the case. 28. It was submitted that findings of the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent bank while rejecting the representation by order dated 24.07.2003 is contrary to the facts and evidence on record as there is no financial aspect of the proven act of misconduct on part of the original petitioner which is proved during the course of disciplinary inquiry. It was therefore, Page 11 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 submitted that the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are required to be considered from the reasoning given by the Managing Director in its communication dated 24.07.2003 only. 29. It was therefore, submitted that the appellants are not against the six charges which are levelled against the petitioner are proved but the appellants have filed this appeal only to challenge the disproportionate punishment to the original petitioner regarding the charges levelled against him. 30. It was submitted that earlier writ petition was withdrawn only with a view to persuade the respondent bank to reconsider the imposition of major penalty of dismissal by substituting it with other suitable penalty considering that the charges levelled against the original petitioner are of Page 12 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 procedural nature. 31. It was therefore, submitted that learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has ignored this fact of disproportionate penalty for each of the charges. It was submitted that the disciplinary authority has imposed different punishment for different charges. 32. It was pointed out that for Charge no.1, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed, however the said charge was relating to inflation of stock and failure to carry out/manage for the inspection of goods hypothecated to the bank and thereby promoted the party to avail finance against inflated stocks. However, there is no financial implication of that charge as held by the inquiry officer. Page 13 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 33. It was pointed out from the order passed by the disciplinary authority that advancing of finance against the inflated stock has not caused any financial loss to the respondent bank and for such alleged misconduct, the major penalty of dismissal from service ought not to have been awarded. 34. It was further submitted that with regard to charge no.2, reduction of basic pay by four stages in time scale was levied as the charge levied against the original petitioner was failure to verify/arrange for verification of correct value of the stocks disclosed by the party in the stock statement. 35. It was submitted that with regard to charge no.3 pertaining to keep proper control over the accounts of the party, the penalty Page 14 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 of dismissal from service is imposed though there is no financial impact of any of the alleged procedural irregularity committed by the original petitioner by not keeping proper control over the accounts of the party as there were transfers from EPC account to CC Account for which the bank has not suffered any financial loss. 36. It was submitted that as regard charge no.4, penalty imposed is reduction of basic pay by six increments as the charge related to not ensuring to get adjusted/reduced overdue outstanding balance of EPC account from the proceeds of the duty draw back and cash incentives. 37. With regard to charge no.5, it was submitted that for the alleged failure on part of the original petitioner to exercise proper control over the account and as a Page 15 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 result the party could divert huge funds from EPC Account through CC Account in favour of their parent company account/allied concerns/ concerns of same group/family members etc. is concerned, the penalty imposed is dismissal from service though there is no financial impact. 38. With regard to charge no.6, it was submitted that again the charge is regarding failure to exercise control over the EPC account of the party and made advance against future contract without bothering to first liquidate the existing outstanding in the account. It was submitted that the penalty imposed for charge no.6 is dismissal from service though there is no financial impact and considering the fact that all charges were proved against the original petitioner, dismissal from service under Regulation 4 of the Central bank of India Officer Employees Page 16 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1976 (For short “the Regulations”) was imposed though the original petitioner has retired from service on 31.10.1993 but was continued in service due to pendency of the inquiry proceedings. 39. It was submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tanna that the learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.B. Majmudar, As His Lordship was then) by order dated 30.04.20o3 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate authority in the matter and the appropriate authority was directed to consider the application that may be submitted by the petitioner and may be dealt with sympathetically and to take a decision in accordance with law within four weeks. Page 17 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 40. It was submitted the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent bank has rejected the representation of the petitioner only on the ground that the financial impact of the proven acts of misconduct on part of the original petitioner which does not exist either at show cause notice or in charge- sheet or in inquiry report or in the order of disciplinary authority. It was therefore submitted that learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in confirming the order passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent bank rejecting the representation of the petitioner without any basis and is contrary to the findings of the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority where none of the charges proved against the petitioner suffers from any financial impact of proven misconduct on the part of the original petitioner. Page 18 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 41. It was further submitted that under the instructions, the appellant will not claim any monetary benefit if the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the original petitioner is altered to commensurate the charges levelled against him which are proved during the inquiry proceedings. 42. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Mohini Bhavsar for the respondent bank submitted that this is the third round of litigation as initially the appellant filed Special Civil Application No.10096/1995 which came to be withdrawn with a view to make a representation before the bank for taking a sympathetic view. Thereafter, the said representation was rejected and thus the appellant filed Special Civil Application No.10824/2024, which also came to be rejected by oral judgment dated 12.08.2016 by this Page 19 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 Court. 43. Thereafter the appellant filed Misc. Civil Application No.3056/2016 for Review of the aforesaid oral judgement which came to be rejected by order dated 07.07.2017. The appellant thereafter filed two Letters Patent Appeal No.2164/2017 and No.2165/2017 challenging the oral judgment passed on 12.08.2016 as well as order dated 07.07.2017 passed in review application. Both the said Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of by way of common oral order dated 20.02.2019 whereby the LPA No.2164/2017 is allowed and the Review Application being MCA No.3056/2017 is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to decide afresh. 44. Thereafter this Court by order dated 19.01.2023 allowed the Misc. Civil Application No.3056/2017 and restored Special Page 20 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 Civil Application No.10824/2004 to its original file. Accordingly, the present appeal is filed against the judgment passed in the Special Civil Application No. 10824/2004. 45. Learned advocate for the respondent relied upon the observation made by this Court in judgment dated 12.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.10824 of 2004 wherein it is observed as under: "…there is limited scope of judicial review of the discretion exercised by the employer to impose a particular penalty on the delinquent employee. The Supreme court repeatedly emphasized that the High Courts, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, should not exercise appellate jurisdiction in such matters and substitute its opinion by the one formed by the disciplinary authority. It has also been held that the punishment imposed by the competent authority should not be modified/substituted with a lesser penalty unless the court is satisfied that the same is grossly Page 21 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 or shockingly disappropriate or is so unreasonable that no person of a reasonable prudence would have imposed such punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case." 46. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that all the six charges leveled against the appellant were proved in the departmental inquiry after perusing the evidences from management side and defense side. 47. With regard to charge No.3, in the report of inquiry officer, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that it is mentioned that party has written letter on 27.01.1990 that cash payment of considerable large amount was made to M/s.Walker Anjariya and sons Pvt. Ltd. (parent company). Further by letter dated 24.04.1990, party had admitted that they had diverted over Rs.50/- Lacs to M/s.Walker Anjariya and sons Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 48. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that with regard to charge No.4, the inquiry officer perused the letter written by Zonal office, Ahmedabad dated 26.01.1989, which states that cash credit and EPC account of the party were out of order since long. Further the letter of party dated 27.02.1990 was also perused in which party has stated that all the payments received by them towards cash assistance and duty draw back had been deposited in CC account of the party and they had not been instructed by the branch to deposit the same in EPC account. 49. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that with regard to charge No.5, the inquiry officer perused the letter dated 27.01.1990 submitted by M/s. P.M.P. Ltd. to Zonal office, Ahmedabad that they had diverted the funds from their CC account and Page 23 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 that the said funds were utilized for the purpose other than for which EPC advance was granted to M/s. P.M.P. Ltd. Further vide letter dated 24.04.1990, the party in clear terms admitted that they have diverted Rs.50/- lacs to their parent company account i.e. M/s.Walker Anjariya and sons Pvt. Ltd. 50. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that with regard to charge No.6, the inquiry officer perused the letter dated 28.01.1989 written by Zonal office to the branch that the CC account and EPC account of the party were out of order since long. He also perused the letter of Zonal office to CO, Bombay dated 17.08.1989 that overall performance of the party was not satisfactory and letter dated 31.08.1990 that an amount of Rs.5,50,760/- was overdue in EPC account of the party as on 07.09.1990. Page 24 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 51. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that after considering the report of inquiry officer as well as defense of the appellant, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 06.05.1994, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. 52. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that with respect to the issue of financial impact on the bank due to misconduct on the part of appellant, it is stated that a Chief Manager who commits irregularities in maintaining the accounts and if found guilty is subjected to face the disciplinary action. All Bank officers are expected to act with high standards of honesty, integrity and diligence. Further the Chief Officer has to ensure the internal control to prevent the diversion of funds. In the present case, the appellant failed to Page 25 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 perform his duties with diligence and therefore the party could attempt to divert the funds and use the funds for other purpose then it was sanctioned. Therefore, violation of bank norms constitutes serious misconduct regardless the fact that whether bank sustained pecuniary loss. However, in the present case, the amount remained outstanding in the party's account and suit was filed for recovery. 53. Learned advocate for the respondent, in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following judgments: - 1) N.G. Kotecha v. Central Bank of India and others (judgment dated 12.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.10824 of 2004). 2) B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 Page 26 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 3) Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583 4) State Bank of India Vs. Bela Bagchi reported in 2005 (0) AIJEL SC 35499 5) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL SC 66911. 6) Regional Manager, Uco Bank Vs. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL SC 68398. 7) Union of India Vs. M. Duraisamy reported in 2022 (0) ALJEL SC 68662 54. It was therefore submitted that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal by confirming the impugned judgement and order passed by Page 27 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 learned Single judge. 55. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case it is not in dispute that the charges levelled against the original petitioner are proved during the inquiry proceedings and are confirmed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. 56. It also emerges from the record that the original petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal confirmed by the appellate authority before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.10096/1995 which was permitted to be withdrawn on 30.04.2003 by learned Single Judge by making the following observations: “The petitioner is accordingly Page 28 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 permitted to withdraw this petition, appropriate authority shall consider the application that may be submitted with a liberty to approach the appropriate authority in the matter. The by the petitioner and such application may be dealt with sympathetically and the authority may take the decision in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application. In view of the aforesaid direction, Mr. Tanna for the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition, reserving his right to challenge such order if passed against the petitioner on his representation. Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. It is clarified that in case such final decision on such representation is against the petitioner, it would be open for him to challenge the same in accordance with law.” 57. The original petitioner thereafter preferred representation before Chairman and Managing Director which was disposed of by the impugned order/communication dated 24.07.2003 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director by making following Page 29 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 observations: “After going through the facts of the case as above, particularly the financial impact of the proven acts of misconduct on the part of Shri Kotecha on the Organisation, I have not been able to persuade myself as the head of a Public Sector Bank to show any sympathy in the case and alter the penalty that was awarded and confirmed by the independent authorities viz Disciplinary Authority/Deputy General Manager and the Appellate Authority/General Manager respectively at different points of time. Hence, the request of Shri Kotecha to alter the penalty awarded to him stands rejected.” 58. It is astonishing that the Chairman and Managing Director has rejected the representation in one line by observing that “...particulary, the financial impact of the proven acts of misconduct on the part of Shri Kotecha on the Organisation, I have not been able to persuade myself as the head of a Public Sector Bank to show any sympathy in the case…” Except the above observations, Page 30 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 there is no reason assigned as to why the representation of the original petitioner was not considered. If we peruse the entire order/communication dated 24.07.2003, six paragraphs are referring to the fact of the proceedings against the original petitioner and only observation is made as reproduced here in above. 59. Thus, the Chairman and Managing Director has cursorily rejected the representation made by the original petitioner as the original petitioner was never interested in challenging the findings of the inquiry officer or the appellate authority, otherwise the writ petition would not have been withdrawn so as to make a representation. 60. This clearly shows the conduct on part of the respondent Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent bank who has Page 31 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 flagrantly violated and misinterpreted the direction issued by this Court to consider the representation of the original petitioner sympathetically and in accordance with law. 61. On perusal of the documents made available on record as well as the detailed recording of the evidence by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent bank has without application of mind, concluded that there is proven financial impact due to misconduct on part of the original petitioner upon the respondent bank whereas there is nothing on record to show that the respondent bank at any point of time has suffered financial loss due to the proven misconduct on part of the original petitioner. 62. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent bank also does not refer to any Page 32 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 financial loss or impact on the respondent bank and therefore, the Chairman and Managing Director ought to have considered the disproportionate penalty of dismissal from service sympathetically as directed by this Court while permitting the petitioner to withdraw Special Civil Application No.10096 of 1995. 63. Regulation 4 of the Regulations provide for penalties, both minor and major penalties. The major penalties prescribed are as under: “Major Penalties:……….. f) Save as Provided for in (e) above reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the officer will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; g) reduction to a lower grade or Page 33 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 post; h) Compulsory retirement; i) Removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment, j) Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.” 64. If we consider the major penalties which may be imposed upon the petitioner, reduction to a lower grade or post as per clause (g) is also a major penalty, however during the pendency of the proceedings, the original petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 65. Considering the charges levelled against the petitioner which are proved during the inquiry proceedings, the respondent bank could have imposed penalty as per clause (f). As the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1993 and Page 34 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 therefore, imposition of compulsory retirement as per clause (h) would not be possible. 66. With regard to the penalty of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment as per clause (j) is concerned, is an economic and social death of the petitioner who has rendered 41 years of unblemished service with the respondent bank. 67. Therefore, considering the charges levelled against the petitioner which are proved during the inquiry proceedings and confirmed during the appellate proceedings are concerned and the fact that there is no financial impact due to such misconduct which are proved during the course of inquiry proceedings, we are of the opinion that the Page 35 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled and the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer. 68. Therefore, the penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner can be substituted by reduction to a lower grade or post as imposed by the disciplinary authority for charge nos. 2 and 4 by reduction of basic pay by six increments for four stages in time scale as all charges are interrelated to each other and therefore, the penalty imposed upon the original petitioner of dismissal is hereby quashed and set aside and it is substituted by reduction of basic pay by six stages in time scale. 69. The aforesaid substitution of punishment would not result in any financial implication as it is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tanna on behalf of the Page 36 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 appellants that the appellants will not claim any monetary benefit due to substitution of the penalty and as the appellants are only interested in removal of stigmatic penalty of dismissal from service for the original petitioner. 70. The respondent bank is therefore, directed to pass appropriate consequential order of substitution of the penalty as directed here-in-above without any financial liability upon the respondent bank as the respondent bank shall not be liable to pay any monetary benefit arising out of such substitution of major penalty of clause (f) instead of clause(j) of the Rule 4 of the Rules because the appellants have forgone their right to claim any monetary benefit arising out of reduction of the substitution of the penalty. Page 37 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026 C/LPA/186/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 71. Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. Civil Application also stands disposed of. (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 38 of 38 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 17:33:15 IST 2026</div>