Judicial review of disciplinary action is restricted to procedural fairness and not the proportionality of punishment in financial loss cases.

The Appellant (originally the petitioner, now represented by his legal heir) was a Regional Head at Union Bank of India.

He was issued a charge memorandum on 08.09.2007 containing nine charges related to sanctioning loans without following guidelines, causing financial loss to the Bank.

An enquiry report dated 17.03.2009 found charges 1 to 5 and 9 proved.

Consequently, he was dismissed from service on 26.02.2010, a decision confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 03.01.2013.

The Appellant challenged these orders via a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on 31.10.2019.

The present Writ Appeal was filed seeking to set aside that order and claim terminal benefits, citing discrimination in punishment compared to a Branch Manager and lack of clarity in enquiry findings.

1. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse or lacked evidence, particularly regarding "shared responsibility".

2. Whether the punishment of dismissal was discriminatory or disproportionate compared to the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to a co-delinquent.

3. Whether the Appellate Authority failed to comply with Regulation 16(4) of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

The Court applied the established principles of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that the power is limited to ensuring fair treatment and compliance with natural justice rather than re-appreciating evidence.

It relied on *B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India* [(1995) 6 SCC 749], *Deputy General Manager v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava* [(2021) 2 SCC 612], and *Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh* [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478] to hold that findings should be sustained if supported by some evidence.

Regarding parity of punishment, it applied the ratio from *Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain* [(2005) 10 SCC 84], which establishes that different punishments can be imposed if the duties and responsibilities of delinquents differ, even for the same transaction.

The Court analyzed the enquiry report and found that while the Enquiry Officer mentioned "shared responsibility" for charges 1, 2, 4, and 5, there was abundant evidence specifically against the Appellant, negating any claim of perversity.

On the issue of parity, the Court distinguished the Appellant’s role as Regional Head from that of the Branch Manager (Mr. Arjunan); the Appellant held a higher position of responsibility and had allegedly ignored Audit Department warnings before sanctioning the subject loans.

Regarding the procedural challenge under Regulation 16(4), the Court found that the Appellate Authority’s order indicates a harmonious reading of the facts and gravity of charges, satisfying the regulatory requirement.

Finally, the Court declined to exercise "mercy jurisdiction," noting that the Appellant’s conduct led to significant financial loss and lacked the mitigating circumstances found in previous precedents.

The Court held that the findings of guilt were supported by evidence, the punishment was proportional to the Appellant's specific rank and negligence, and the procedural requirements of the disciplinary regulations were met.

The prayer to set aside the dismissal and award terminal benefits was rejected.