JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. N.K. Neog, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The State Bank of India (SBI) and their officers are represented by the learned senior counsel Mr. S.S. Sharma. 2. The petitioner served as a branch manager in the MMGS-II grade of the SBI and during the pendency of the case, he retired from the service on 31.12.2014. The challenge here is to the order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure-IX), whereby, in pursuant to a Disciplinary Proceeding (D.P.), the punishment of “reduction to four lower stages in the time scale of pay for two years period, with further directions that the officer will not earn increments to pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay”, was ordered against the branch manager. The dismissal of the resultant appeal of the delinquent by the SBI’s Appellate Authority on 24.2.2009 (Annexure-XI), is also challenged by the petitioner. 3. At the relevant time during 2005—06, the petitioner was serving as the branch manager of the SBI at Tuli Town in Nagaland. On the allegation of non-functioning of the branch on certain days, the D.P. was drawn up against the manager on 21.11.2006 (Annexure-III), with the following three allegations: “1. It is alleged that, while you were holding charge of Branch Manager at our Tuli Branch, you have kept the Branch closed unauthorizedly for 39 days detailed hereunder: Sl. No. Period No. of days. 1 5th, 6th & 7th April 2005 (Tuesday to Thursday) 3 days 2 16th April to 18th April 2005 (Saturday to Monday) 3 days 3 19th April to 20th April 2005 (Tuesday to Wednesday). 2 days 4 21st April to 23rd April 2005 (Thursday to Saturday). 3 days 5 14th May 2005 (Saturday) 1 day 6 24th May to 28th May 2005 (Tuesday to Saturday). 5 days 7 17th June to 20th June 2005 (Friday to Monday) 4 days 8 27th June to 30th June 4 days 9 14th July to 16th July 2005 (Thursday to Saturday) 3 days 10 13th August & 16th August 2005 (Saturday & Tuesday) 2 days 11 22nd Oct. to 26th Oct, 2005 (Saturday to Wednesday) 5 days 12 17th to 19th November 2005 (Thursday to Saturday) 3 days 13 16th January 2006 (Monday) 1 day Total 39 days 2. to 26th Oct, 2005 (Saturday to Wednesday) 5 days 12 17th to 19th November 2005 (Thursday to Saturday) 3 days 13 16th January 2006 (Monday) 1 day Total 39 days 2. It is also alleged that you have failed to take any initiative to open the Branch for public transactions and not reported the mater to your controlling office 3. On 16th January, 2006, even after you were told to open the Branch and carry out the transactions of the customers standing outside the Branch, you have failed to discharge your responsibility and orders of your controller and kept the Branch closed”. 4. In his reply dated 3.1.2007 (Annexure-IV), to the charge memo, the delinquent explained that the Tuli branch was basically a two men office and whenever the other Bank employee was absent and a reliever is not deployed, the functioning of the branch was impacted on those days. The remote town with little connectivity, where militant activities were rampant, were also cited as reply on the allegations. 5. Dissatisfied with the reply of the delinquent, an enquiry was ordered into the charges and after evaluation of the evidence, the Inquiry Officer in his report (Annexure-VII), concluded that the allegation No.1 was partially proved on the non-functioning of the Bank for 11 days (instead of 39 days). The 2nd allegation was however found to be fully proved but the 3rd allegation was held to be not proved at all. 6. The findings of the domestic inquiry was furnished to the delinquent on 21.12.2007 (Annexure-VI) and in his response of 10.1.2008 (Annexure-VIII), the branch manager re-iterated that Tuli area was a hot bed of insurgent activities of Nagaland and telephone and other connectivity was not available. The supply of electricity was erratic and the basic amenities of life were scarce and provisions had to be collected from Amguri town. Nevertheless, during his service as the branch manager at Tuli, for the first time in 25 years, the SBI branch earned profit and could improve the performance of the Bank. The supply of electricity was erratic and the basic amenities of life were scarce and provisions had to be collected from Amguri town. Nevertheless, during his service as the branch manager at Tuli, for the first time in 25 years, the SBI branch earned profit and could improve the performance of the Bank. Highlighting the special difficulties, the branch manager requested that the allegation of non-functioning of the Bank on 11 days be examined in the context of a 2nd staff not being available to discharge the bank’s usual business on certain days and also the failure of the computer server in the Tuli branch on one occasion, which necessitated sending of the dysfunctional computer for repair, to Dimapur. 7. However the disciplinary authority did not accept the explanation of the delinquent and for the alleged irregularities committed by the branch manager, the punishment of reduction of pay to four lower stages in the time scale for a period of two years was inflicted, under the impugned order 8.9.2009 (Annexure-IX). 8. In the resultant Appeal filed on 13.12.2008 (Annexure-X), the petitioner mentioned that the Tuli branch of the SBI was in the “C”-category with one clerical staff cum joint custodian alongwith the branch manager and it was classified as a difficult station, by the management of the SBI. Militant activities were rampant in the area, which had no phone connectivity or public transport and weekly marketing had to be done from Amguri Bazar, at some distance from Tuli town. The delinquent stated that he used to reside in the 2nd floor of the Bank building and was never late or was absent from duties. But on certain days, in the absence of the 2nd staff, cash transaction could not be carried out. Moreover because of militant threat, limited cash was made available in the Tuli branch. Mentioning these circumstances, the delinquent appealed to the Appellate Authority to consider the hardship, under which the Tuli branch had to be kept functional and prayed for his exoneration for the non-functioning of the Bank on 11 days, for factors beyond the control of the delinquent. 9. However the Chief General Manager of the SBI as the Appellate Authority, did not find any justification to exonerate the delinquent and accordingly approved the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, by rejecting the Appeal under the impugned order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure-XI). 10. 9. However the Chief General Manager of the SBI as the Appellate Authority, did not find any justification to exonerate the delinquent and accordingly approved the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, by rejecting the Appeal under the impugned order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure-XI). 10. The State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Service Rules’), specifies the conduct and discipline expected of the SBI Officers and absence from work is considered to be a misconduct, under Rule 58(1) of the Service Rules. Closure of transaction of the branch is not however specified as a misconduct under the Service Rules. Nevertheless, the basic allegation against the branch manager was his failure to keep the bank branch functional. 11. When the branch manager had his residence in the same building, where the bank is located on the ground floor, in the absence of any allegation that the branch manager was not available at Tuli, one can reasonably conclude that the manager was available for duty on all working days. Therefore his misconduct cannot be described as absence from work, covered under Rule 58(1) of the Service Rules. 12. However absence of usual transaction in the branch at Tuli on 11 days, was found to be established in the inquiry. While this may justify disciplinary action on the branch manager, the difficult situation in the remote militant infested area should have been factored in, for penalizing the branch manager, for his alleged default, in keeping the branch operational on all days. If the only other staff in the branch becomes unavailable, the failure of the branch manager as the single employee in the branch to conduct normal business in the branch, cannot be seen harshly without being conscious of the special difficulties in Tuli town. The disciplinary authority however failed to factor-in the circumstances highlighted by the delinquent, in his written response given on 10.1.2008 (Annexure-VIII). Even the Appellate Authority while referring perfunctorily to the points raised by the delinquent in his Appeal Memo dated 13.12.2008, failed to specifically address any of the issues and made the omnibus observation of holistic consideration of the issues, raised by the delinquent. 13. The situation in Nagaland at the relevant period was far from normal and Tuli Town was particularly a difficult area, for want of telephone and network connection. 13. The situation in Nagaland at the relevant period was far from normal and Tuli Town was particularly a difficult area, for want of telephone and network connection. Arranging for the daily needs itself was a matter of some efforts. But the hard life in the remote town and the two staff branch through which, the bank business had to be managed, were overlooked by both the Disciplinary as well as the Appellate Authority of the SBI. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that the punishment on the branch manager, in the context of the prevalent scenario in the area, was not commensurate with the misconduct. 14. The disciplinary authority should have considered whether it was possible for the branch manager as the solitary employee to keep the bank operational by himself in the absence of a second staff at the branch. Similarly the failure of the computer system on the given days should have also been considered as a mitigating factor, for determining the penalty for the delinquent. But the authorities have failed to take into account these mitigating circumstances. Therefore I feel that disproportionate punishment, not warranted by the degree of default of the branch manager, was inflicted upon him. This has led to undeserved harsher punishment for the delinquent. Moreover, the Tuli branch of the SBI was suffering loss for 25 years and for the first time with the posting of the petitioner, the SBI branch made reasonable profit during the short tenure of the petitioner. But this positive aspect too, was not taken into account, by the authorities. 15. Following the above discussion, the Court is of the view that harsh punishment was undeservingly inflicted upon the delinquent, which would require reconsideration by the disciplinary authorities. In the assessment of the Court, the minor penalty prescribed under sub-Clause (a) or (b) of Rule 67 of the Service Rules, would meet the ends of justice, for both the employer and the employee. Therefore the impugned order dated order 8.9.2009 (Annexure-IX) and the Appellate order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure-XI), are set aside and quashed. The disciplinary authority of the SBI is accordingly directed to impose either of the two minor penalties, as may be found appropriate, in substitution of the earlier penalty. To facilitate the exercise, the petitioner will furnish this order and the disciplinary authority should then re-decide the penalty, within eight weeks of receipt of communication. The disciplinary authority of the SBI is accordingly directed to impose either of the two minor penalties, as may be found appropriate, in substitution of the earlier penalty. To facilitate the exercise, the petitioner will furnish this order and the disciplinary authority should then re-decide the penalty, within eight weeks of receipt of communication. It is ordered accordingly. 16. With the above order, the case stands allowed, in the manner indicated. No cost.