Gudipoodi Balakrishna Vs the Union of India

dated 31.03.2023 in imposing the compulsorily retiring the petitioner and the consequential order of the 4^th respondent dated 20.07.2023 and the order of the

¶25

2

¶26

3^rd respondent dated 08.02.2024 duly confirming the said punishment as arbitrary, illegal and irregular.

¶27

The petitioner being employee in banking institution that too working as a Head Cashier, Duddukur Branch, Panguluru Village, Prakasam District. Based on certain dereliction of duties and negligence in duty, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and after following the procedure, punishment of compulsory retirement was passed by the 5^th respondent-competent authority vide proceedings dated 31.03.2023. The said proceedings were confirmed by the appellate authority-4^th respondent as well as the revisional authority-3^rd respondent vide proceedings dated 20.07.2023 and 08.02.2024 respectively.

¶28

While, arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court with regard to one Mr. P. Sundeep, SWO APF No.702543 who was working in Muthukur Branch in Nellore RO being proved on same modus operandi and punished with “Be brought down to lower stage in the scale of pay up to two stages for a period of two years”. But, in the instant case, the respondents have imposed major punishment of compulsorily retirement which is harsh and selective discrimination. Hence, requested to remand the matter to the 3^rd respondent for fresh consideration.

¶29

Reply to the same, Sri K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has made his submissions that the respondent-bank has followed the procedure scrupulously and charges were

¶30

3

¶31

framed based on the complaints and also after verification of the records and the petitioner being Head Cashier and the allegations are with regard to the deposit of certain amounts made by the account holders and an enquiry has been conducted and after providing an opportunity of hearing, the punishment was given. Both the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority considered and passed appropriate orders based on the record. Hence, there is no scope to interfere with impugned orders.

¶32

Considering the arguments of both sides, as this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, but considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a liberty has been granted to file a fresh review application along with all the material particularly with regard to the punishment made in identical situations to other employees by the respondent-bank and the review authority may consider the same particularly with regard to the punishment which were brought down to lower stage in the case of other employees by the respondent-bank and the same may be considered in the case of the petitioner also within a period of three months from the date of submission of the review application by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶33