Judgment In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of penalty dated 31.08.2006 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 12.06.2007 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. 2. Respondent is a nationalized bank engaged in the business of banking. Petitioner joined the services of respondent – Bank in the year 1978 as Agricultural Field Officer. Petitioner was promoted from time to time and he was working as Senior Manager between May 1998 and May 2003 in Cantonment branch and Industrial Finance Branch at Bangalore(for short ‘IFB’). The respondent – bank noticed certain irregularities, manipulation of accounting entries, violation of banking procedure etc., alleged to have been committed by petitioner. Consequently the respondent – Bank issued a memorandum dated 10.03.2004 as per Annexure A calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the misconduct committed by him. The petitioner submitted his reply on 15.04.2004 as per Annexure B. Since the explanation to the petitioner was not satisfactory, the respondent – Bank issued articles of charges on 02.04.2005. The petitioner submitted his reply on 10.05.2005. Since the reply of the petitioner was not convincing, the respondent – Bank initiated enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report as per Annexure D dated 19.09.2005 stating that some of the charges as proved, some of the charges as partly proved and some of the charges as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority by accepting the enquiry report passed an order of penalty dated 31.08.2006 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the services. Aggrieved by this order of penalty the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Simultaneously the petitioner also filed a petition under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.06.2007 as per Annexure E. Against the order of Disciplinary Authority and the order of Appellate Authority the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was hale, healthy and physically fit when he joined the service of the respondent – Bank in the year 1978. Further it is not in dispute that the petitioner developed visual disability in the year 1991. 4. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was hale, healthy and physically fit when he joined the service of the respondent – Bank in the year 1978. Further it is not in dispute that the petitioner developed visual disability in the year 1991. The visual disability resulted in loss of vision of right eye. Despite the best treatment, the visual disability continued. The doctors warned that the infection to the right eye may spread to the left eye also. In view of this development of visual disability the petitioner requested the respondent – Bank, by his letter dated 03.06.1991, to transfer him to any of the branches or administrative offices at Bangalore so that he can take treatment and save his left eye. Despite the best treatment the petitioner had taken, he lost the vision of left eye also. Acknowledging the visual disability suffered by the petitioner the respondent – Bank granted 5% of basic pay as conveyance allowance by order dated 04.03.1994. Further on the request of the petitioner he was not subjected to routine transfer outside Bangalore on the ground that he was physically disabled. Thus the respondent – Bank was aware of the visual disability of petitioner. Despite the knowledge of visual disability of petitioner, the respondent – Bank posted him to work in accounts section from 1997 to 1998. In the year 1999 the petitioner was asked to work in stationery section and in the same year he ws transferred to audit and accounts sections. Further in the year 2003 the petitioner was transferred to work in staff training college. It is seen from the record that there is no mechanism or methodology in the respondent – Bank as to how a blind person can work in accounts section and attend to regular work in a branch. Petitioner contends that on several occasions he made oral and written requests to the respondent – Bank to give him a suitable post having regard to his visual disability. On the other hand the respondent – Bank denies that they received any such request from the petitioner. Petitioner contends that on several occasions he made oral and written requests to the respondent – Bank to give him a suitable post having regard to his visual disability. On the other hand the respondent – Bank denies that they received any such request from the petitioner. Even if there is no such request from the petitioner, the respondent – Bank is aware of the visual disability of petitioner was under an obligation to provide him a suitable work or lesser work as per Section 47 of the PWD Act. The respondent – Bank by entrusting the work of accounts and regular work in the branches to the petitioner, which he was not capable of doing, are to a large extent responsible for some of the charges leveled against the petitioner. 6. In the memorandum dated 10.03.2004 issued by the respondent – Bank the following allegations are made against the petitioner. a. Accounting irregularities in sundry deposits b. Account irregularities in bills payable, pay order issued c. Accounting irregularities in accounting of income/commission on LG d. Accounting irregularities in TDS collection and remittance e. Preparing misleading vouchers without supporting bills. 7. In the articles of charges dated 02.04.2005 the following misconducts are charged against the petitioner. a. Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. b. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence. c. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity. d. Acting otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties. 8. In the statement of imputation the respondent – Bank relied on as many as 57 allegations in support of the charges leveled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer in his report held that 31 allegations as proved, 7 allegations as partly proved and 19 allegations as not proved. 9. Annexure L dated 24.12.2003 is a report submitted by Inspecting Officers in respect of irregularities in Industrial Finance Branch, Bangalore, for the period from June 1999 to 28.02.2003. During this period petitioner worked as Senior Manager in this branch. This report pointed out irregularities in respect of 47 various types of transactions in this branch. Out of 47 irregular transactions 11 are committed by other employees in the branch, two are committed jointly by petitioner and other employees and two are on account of system errors. During this period petitioner worked as Senior Manager in this branch. This report pointed out irregularities in respect of 47 various types of transactions in this branch. Out of 47 irregular transactions 11 are committed by other employees in the branch, two are committed jointly by petitioner and other employees and two are on account of system errors. Contrary to this report all the irregular transactions are leveled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have not taken this report – Annexure L into consideration. The non-consideration of Annexure-L has resulted in failure of justice. 10. The petitioner in his memorandum of appeal before the Appellate Authority contended that in his explanation dated 15.04.2004 in reply to the memorandum of allegations he had mentioned the names of officials under whose instructions he had carried out the transactions but the Bank has not chosen to seek explanation of those higher ups and that the first page of his reply containing the names of higher ups has been tampered. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 12.07.2007 held that this is not a tenable ground. The material on record discloses that during the relevant period the petitioner was blind. In the background of visual disability of petitioner this ground urged by him gains importance and the same is relevant. Further it is seen from Annexure N the proceedings of departmental enquiry held on 01.08.2005 that the Assisting Officer submitted to the Inquiring Officer as under: “As per the permission given by you, we have gone through the relevant filed at NRO, Bangalore and IFB Bangalore. During the scrutiny, we observed that some of the pages of the replies given by Mr. Raghu Kumar with reference to memorandum No. NR:DP:1618 dated 10.03.2004 have been tampered with. This has lead that the material facts before has not been taken into cognizance. I am submitting the relevant replies given by Mr. Raghu Kumar and the records available in the files of NRO, Bangalore. They may be recorded as Defence documents.” 11. Therefore the finding of Appellate Authority on the ground urged by the petitioner relating to tampering of his reply is not only illegal and the same is contrary to the admitted material on record. 12. As many as 28 charges leveled against the petitioner relates to diversion of commission received by IFB on Bank guarantees issued. Therefore the finding of Appellate Authority on the ground urged by the petitioner relating to tampering of his reply is not only illegal and the same is contrary to the admitted material on record. 12. As many as 28 charges leveled against the petitioner relates to diversion of commission received by IFB on Bank guarantees issued. Annexure T dated 05.08.2005 is a letter issued by the respondent – Bank to the petitioner with a statement. This letter states that the commission charged and received on Bank guarantees are in order except one transaction of B/G No. 2790. The respondent – Bank has not produced this document before the Inquiring Authority. The petitioner produced this letter before the Appellate Authority and the same is rejected by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order as under: “ The allegation of victimization by suppressing facts which the appellant has sought o support by annexing a letter No. IFB:202:05 dated 05.08.2005 would not be of any help tot the Appellant in light of the allegations and charges proved against him in the Inquiry proceedings.” 13. This finding of the Appellate Authority is bad in law and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In all fairness the respondent _ Bank should have produced Annexure T and the statement before the Inquiring Authority. Thus by suppressing the important material the respondent – Bank presented the case before the Inquiring Authority and the Inquiring Authority is thus mislead in the matter. When the petitioner has placed this document Annexure T before the Appellate Authority the same should have been considered by the Appellate Authority. Surprisingly this document Annexure T is not disputed by the respondent _ Bank. On this ground the impugned orders of penalty and the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside. 14. The petitioner in his reply to articles of charges in paragraphs 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15 admitted that he had committed some procedural irregularities. The explanation of the petitioner that it was by mistake, oversight, confusing etc., are not established. Therefore the finding of Inquiring Authority that certain charges as proved is supported by evidence on record and the admissions made by the petitioner, For some of the proved charges the petitioner is liable for punishment. The explanation of the petitioner that it was by mistake, oversight, confusing etc., are not established. Therefore the finding of Inquiring Authority that certain charges as proved is supported by evidence on record and the admissions made by the petitioner, For some of the proved charges the petitioner is liable for punishment. But having regard to the nature of charges, gravity of charges, in the absence of financial loss and the visual disability of the petitioner the punishment of compulsory retirement form service is shockingly disproportionate. Therefore the impugned order of punishment is liable to be set-aside. 15. The Supreme Court in the case of India Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora (1997) 3 SCC 72 held that the High Court has the jurisdiction to interfere with the enquiry findings based on no evidence and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case withholding of three increments with cumulative effect will meet the ends of justice. To this extent the impugned order requires modification. For the reasons stated above following order: i) Writ petition is partly allowed. ii) The impugned order of disciplinary authority dated 31.8.2006 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 12.6.2007 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service are hereby modified withholding three increments with cumulative effect. iii) The respondent Bank is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner in service in any suitable post having regard to his visual disability. iv) The petitioner is entitled for continuity of service and consequential benefits and no backwages. v) The respondent Bank to implement this order within four weeks from today. vi) Ordered accordingly.