Judgment : 1. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk/Typist in the State Bank of India in the year 1984. He was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2004. When he was functioning as Senior Assistant in the Palakonda Branch, he was served with a charge memo, dated 30-08-2006, which contained 10 charges. They were mostly in relation to acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner with reference to his accounts, alteration of figures at which the interest was to be paid on the loan obtained by him etc. He submitted his explanation on 22-09-2006. Not satisfied with that, the appointing authority, i.e. the Assistant General Manager, the 1st respondent herein, appointed an Enquiry Officer. In the Departmental Enquiry, the charges framed against the petitioner were held proved. Taking the same into account, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner proposing the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The 1st respondent passed an order, dated 09-02-2008, removing the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent was rejected on 06-06-2008. Hence, this writ petition. 2. The petitioner contends that most of the allegations against him are in relation to operation of his account and that each and every step as regards the accounts was not only approved by the Branch Manager from time to time, but was also the subject matter of audit conducted by the bank. He submits that at no point of time, he was informed of any irregularity in the accounts much less any steps were taken to correct the same. The petitioner further contends that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority have taken hyper-technical view of the matter and that the same resulted in imposition of punishment. Another contention of the petitioner is that the acts attributed to him do not constitute mis-conduct or indiscipline as defined under the provisions invoked by the respondents. 3. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner took the advantage of being an employee of the bank and resorted to several irregularities. The particulars thereof, such as preparation of credit vouchers, levy of interest on car loan, are referred to. 3. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner took the advantage of being an employee of the bank and resorted to several irregularities. The particulars thereof, such as preparation of credit vouchers, levy of interest on car loan, are referred to. They further submit that the charges framed against the petitioner fit into paragraph-5 (J) of the Memorandum of Settlement of Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen, dated 10-04-2002, (for short ‘Memorandum’). The respondents further state that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner at every stage and that the proceedings do not suffer from any illegality and factual infirmity. 4. Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the account of his client was maintained in the same manner as were the accounts of other customers, and that any transaction can take place only with the approval of the Branch Manager only. Learned counsel submits that though no objection was raised at any point of time, the disciplinary authority raised an issue out of nothing, and imposed the maximum punishment upon the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that even assuming that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved; the punishment imposed against him is totally out of proportion. 5. Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents submits that being an employee of the Bank, the petitioner was required to be cautious and careful, particularly, while operating his own account. He submits that the petitioner has resorted to the acts of crediting interest to his account beyond his entitlement, reduction of interest on car loan and the like. Learned counsel submits that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority have examined the matter with reference to the record, arrived at proper conclusions, and that no interference is warranted with the impugned orders. 6. The petitioner earned promotion to the post of Senior Assistant 20 years after he joined the service and was working at Palakonda Branch when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The 1st respondent served a charge memo on 30-08-2006. Before that, he was placed under suspension. 6. The petitioner earned promotion to the post of Senior Assistant 20 years after he joined the service and was working at Palakonda Branch when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The 1st respondent served a charge memo on 30-08-2006. Before that, he was placed under suspension. The charges farmed against the petitioner read as under: “I. On 28th March 2005 you had irregularly debited interest account No.01Y07099804 with an amount of Rs.4506/-, prepared and signed a credit voucher for the amount for credit of your savings bank account No.01190005283 and got them passed for receiving ineligible credit to your account. II. You had caused interest rate changes in your overdraft account from 8.5% to 0.05% with value dating from 15.02.2005 and from 0.05j% to 8.5% with value dating from 21.03.2005, thereby deriving interest benefit of Rs.1578- on the balance in your overdraft account for 36 days. III. You had opened your car loan account on 23.04.2005 in Simple Interest Memo Mode instead of compounding thereby violating the terms and conditions of the advance sanctioned by the Controlling Authority and derived financial advantage to yourself. IV. You had on 18.02.2005 changed the limit of your demand loan account in the system, from Rs.39000/- to 44000/- without sanction by the Branch Manager and without executing and submitting the loan documents for the enhanced limit. V. You had irregularly debited an amount of Rs.6504/-to arrears on vehicle loan account towards insurance premium of your car instead of directly paying the premium to the insurance company and thereby availed interest free funds from the Bank. VI. You had irregularly availed a second consumer loan at Etikoppaka branch without fully liquidating the consumer loan availed earlier. When Etikoppaka branch debited an amount of Rs.1478- representing interest outstanding in your earlier consumer loan account, instead of repaying the amount you had irregularly debited this amount on 21.04.2005 to new consumer loan account sanctioned at Etikoppaka branch and subsequently transferred to MSR Puram branch. VII. You had on 07.02.2005 irregularly got proceeds of Bankers Cheque No.331969 for Rs.3920/- representing your loan recoveries pertaining to the Month of January 2005, credited to your current account instead of crediting the loan accounts towards instalments for the month of January 2005. VIII. VII. You had on 07.02.2005 irregularly got proceeds of Bankers Cheque No.331969 for Rs.3920/- representing your loan recoveries pertaining to the Month of January 2005, credited to your current account instead of crediting the loan accounts towards instalments for the month of January 2005. VIII. You had with an ulterior motive of deriving pecuniary advantage to yourself reversed interest application entries in consumer loan and vehicle loan accounts (Arrears Accounts) by debit to Interest Income Account of the branch in an arbitrary manner with your Pass Word and User ID. You had while reversing debited Interest Income Account in excess of original amounts and derived pecuniary benefit amount to Rs.3648.86. IX. You had inserted incorrect leave particulars in your Last Pay Certificate dated 06.01.2005 issued by Etikoppaka branch after it was signed by the Branch Manager. NATURE OF LEAVE CORRECT LEAVE INFLATTED LEAVE POSITION POSITION IN LPC CASUAL LEAVE NIL 05 DAYS UN AVIALED C.L. NIL 06 DAYS PRIVILEGE LEAVE 8 DAYS (DEBIT BALANCE) 03 M 05 DAYS SICK LEAVE AVAILED 17 M 20 DAYS 07 M 21 DAYS LOSS OF PAY 30 DAYS IN APRIL 2004. X. You had committed the following irregularities in respect of the T.A. Bill dated 07.02.2005 for Rs.13,520/- submitted by you in connection with your transfer from Etikoppaka branch. a) the lorry receipt ;produced by you is not from a approved transport operator but from a customer of MSR Puram branch by name M/s. Annapurna Modern Rice. You had not obtained prior permission from controller fro the purpose. b) The lorry freight of Rs.11000/- claimed by you for a distance of 160 Kms between Etikoppaka and MSR Puram is on high side.” 7. Out of them, charges 3 and 5 relate to the car loan account. Charges 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 pertain to the operation of the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. Charge No.9 is about leave particulars and charge 10 is about drawing of TA Bill. The defence of the petitioner was that all the instances, mentioned in the charges, have been approved by the concerned Branch Manager and other superior officials and that he has absolutely no role to play. 8. In the charge No.1 the allegation is that the petitioner ‘got them passed for receiving ineligible credit’. The defence of the petitioner was that all the instances, mentioned in the charges, have been approved by the concerned Branch Manager and other superior officials and that he has absolutely no role to play. 8. In the charge No.1 the allegation is that the petitioner ‘got them passed for receiving ineligible credit’. The only person, who could have decided as to whether the petitioner is eligible or not, was the person who passed it or any officer superior to him. If, in fact, the petitioner was availing any benefit, which he did not deserve, the starting point for action in this regard would have been an enquiry into the acts and omissions on the part of the officer, who passed or cleared the transactions. 9. Another basic flaw in the approach of the 1st respondent was that he accused the petitioner of opening car loan account in simple interest mode instead of compounding interest mode. He did not care to understand that the petitioner was not the final authority to sanction the amount nor he has drawn the amount unilaterally. Here again, if any amount was sanctioned to the petitioner beyond his entitlement, the actual person to be proceeded against was the one who sanctioned it. For all practical purposes, the petitioner was as good as any other customer, in relation to those transactions. 10. The other allegations are about submission of leave account and claim of TA Bills. Here again, the allegation was made two and half years after the incident occurred and no one had pointed out any deliberate suppression on the part of the petitioner. In none of the charges, there was any allegation that the petitioner has mis-appropriated any funds of the Bank or that he has enriched himself with the funds belonging to any other customer. 11. Though, at some of the charges framed against the petitioner can be said to have been proved technically, the fact that the petitioner rendered unblemished service for more than two decades, ought to have been kept in mind. Any punishment imposed by an employer must be proportionate to the gravity of the charges proved against the employee. Existence of power would not justify the exercise thereof indiscriminately. Any punishment imposed by an employer must be proportionate to the gravity of the charges proved against the employee. Existence of power would not justify the exercise thereof indiscriminately. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would meet if the punishment of reversion to the rank of clerk cum typist to the scale of pay, which the petitioner was drawing immediately before his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant would meet the ends of justice. The respondents 1 and 2 can also post the petitioner to work in clerical or other capacities in which he would not have any opportunity to deal with the accounts of himself or others. 12. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed in part, modifying the punishment imposed against the petitioner to the one of reversion to the post of Clerk/Typist in the scale of pay, which he was drawing immediately before he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant and it shall be open to the respondents to entrust him with the duties, which do not have any access for operation of Bank accounts or financial matters. In case any terminal benefits were extended to the petitioner, it shall be open to him to refund them or to seek adjustment thereof, when he attains the age of superannuation. There shall be no order as to costs.