JUDGMENT 1. - Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner while he was working as Branch Manager of the State Bank of India. The disciplinary authority found three charges proved against the petitioner and imposed major penalty under Rule 49(g) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules (in short the Staff Service Rules) and removed the petitioner from service. After unsuccessful appeal the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition assailing his termination order and seeking declaration that Rule 50(3)(ii) of the Staff Service Rules is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief resume of the facts is that on March 18, 1982, while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the State Bank of India Itarna Branch was suspended pending further action. On March 23, 1984 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet along with the memorandum of allegations. Four charges were levelled against the petitioner. After enquiry the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges except charge No. 3, which was also proved partially. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the report of the enquiry officer and held three charges proved against the petitioner and imposed the major penalty of removal from service by the order dated January 30, 1986. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal was also rejected vide communication dated August 7, 1986. Earlier to the disciplinary proceedings, the C.B.I. has also enquired into the matter. 3. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and averred that the petitioner was suspended in connection with certain irregularities committed by the petitioner in connection with sanction, conduct and follow up of advances in general and grant of clean overdrafts to firms/individual in particular while working as Branch Manager at Itarna Branch. The C.B.I. established sufficient material for initiating regular departmental enquiry for imposing major penalty against the petitioner. The respondents also averred that the entire procedure followed in respect of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was absolutely legal and proper and wholly in accordance with the Service Rules of the respondent Bank. The petitioner was given due and complete opportunity of hearing and the entire proceedings were absolutely valid, legal and proper. The respondents also averred that the entire procedure followed in respect of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was absolutely legal and proper and wholly in accordance with the Service Rules of the respondent Bank. The petitioner was given due and complete opportunity of hearing and the entire proceedings were absolutely valid, legal and proper. The disciplinary authority after going through the enquiry proceedings vis-a-vis the documents produced in the enquiry, findings of the enquiry authority and other relevant papers held the petitioner guilty of three charges for displaying gross negligence, irregular passing of pecuniary gains the borrowers as well as to himself, exposing Bank to grave financial risk. In relation to the petitioner's appeal the respondents averred that the matter was duly considered by the Local Board of the Bank at its meeting held on August 7, 1986 and it was resolved to confirm the penalty of removal from Bank's service of the petitioner and rejected the appeal. 4. Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been subjected to two investigations for the same case viz. one conducted by the C.B.I. and other by the department. It has been argued that the petitioner is protected by the doctrine of double jeopardy and therefore the second enquiry and all subsequent proceedings done thereto need to be struck down as being violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that the inquiry proceedings were done without following the procedure established by law. The whole procedure was a mere force and laws of natural justice were all put in the closet. The order of the Appellate Board cannot be sustained as being violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India as the disciplinary authority which had passed the earlier order was the Secretary of the Local Board formed for the purpose of deciding the appeal. Reliance has been placed on PNB v. Kunj Behari Sharma (1998) 7 SCC 84 . 5. Mr. Reliance has been placed on PNB v. Kunj Behari Sharma (1998) 7 SCC 84 . 5. Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents canvassed that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case and the disciplinary authority taken into consideration the material available on record and looking to the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner passed the major penalty of removal from service on the petitioner and the appeal of the petitioner was also considered by the Local Board and the Board in its meeting held on August 7, 1986 resolved to confirm the penalty of removal of the petitioner from service and rejected the appeal. The order of the disciplinary authority as well as the Board are just and proper looking to the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner on the basis of the available material. Mr. Gupta submitted that the writ petition has been filed after three years of the passing of the appellate order. 6. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record. 7. In Union of India and another v. B.C. Chaturvedi (1995) 6 SCC 749 it was held that where the findings of the disciplinary authority/appellate authority are based on some evidence, court/tribunal cannot re appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings. 8. in State Bank of India and others v. Samarendra Kishore Endow and another 1994(2) SCC 537 , it was observed that the High Court cannot interfere if punishment has been imposed after holding enquiry and if it is considered that the punishment imposed is harsh the proper course is to remit the case back to the appellate or the disciplinary authority. 9. In Shankar Dass v. Union of India and another (1985) 2 SCC 358 their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the crime committed under the stress of personal misery, compounded by the apathy of the Establishment and the appalling delays of law. It was held "But the right to impose penalty carries with it the duty to act justly. Considering the facts of this case there can be no two opinions that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the appellant is whimsical." 10. It was held "But the right to impose penalty carries with it the duty to act justly. Considering the facts of this case there can be no two opinions that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the appellant is whimsical." 10. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, AIR 1983 SC 454 their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that "in a petition under Article 226, the High Court does not function as a court of appeal over the findings of disciplinary authority. But where the finding is utterly perverse the High Court can always interfere with the same." 11. In Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others (1999) 2 SCC 10 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus- "It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of course. The court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the appellate authority. The power of judicial review available to the High Court as also to this court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded there such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior authority." 12. The principles that may be deduced from the above references may be summarised thus- (i) the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of course. (ii) the High Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume role of the appellate authority, but where the finding is utterly perverse the High Court can always interfere with the same. (iii) the findings may be said utterly perverse, where there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man. (iv) the findings can be interfered with where punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 13. (iii) the findings may be said utterly perverse, where there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man. (iv) the findings can be interfered with where punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 13. Now I proceed to consider the case on merits. 14. Rule 50(3)(ii) of the Staff Service Rules provides that the disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. Sub-rule (3) (ii) of Rule 50 of the Staff Services Rules is perimateria with Rule 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1977, which provides thus : "7(2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose." 15. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra (supra) had occasion to consider the Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 and indicated that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2) and whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. 16. I have closely scrutinised the order of the disciplinary authority. In the said order the disciplinary authority Chief General Manager had gone through the enquiry proceedings, documents produced in the enquiry, findings of the inquiring authority and other relevant papers. Observations in regard to the charges and the findings of the inquiring authority have been discussed in the tabular statement and it was held that the petitioner was responsible for displaying gross negligence, irregularly passing on pecuniary gains to the borrowers as well as to himself, exposing the Bank to grave financial risks. Observations in regard to the charges and the findings of the inquiring authority have been discussed in the tabular statement and it was held that the petitioner was responsible for displaying gross negligence, irregularly passing on pecuniary gains to the borrowers as well as to himself, exposing the Bank to grave financial risks. Keeping in view the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner and his unsatisfactory record in the past, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner in terms of Rule 49(g) of the Staff Service Rules. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiring authority on some articles of charges therefore it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and to provide the petitioner an opportunity to represent before recording the finding of punishment. Admittedly no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to make representation before recording its finding by the disciplinary authority. The principles of natural justice require the disciplinary authority which had to take a final decision and could impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the petitioner charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the petitioner. Therefore the orders of the disciplinary authority and of the appellate authority deserve to be set-aside. I find no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The delay in filing the writ petition is not fatal in the facts and circumstances of this case. 17. Resultantly, writ petition stands allowed. The impugned orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority shall stand set-aside and the case is remanded back to the disciplinary authority for passing order afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of this writ petition.Writ Petition Allowed - Impugned Orders Set-Aside. *******