[2026:RJ-JP:1421] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5355/2010 Vishram Meena S/o Shri Bhajni Ram, aged about 49 years, R/o Village Sunari, Post Sehra, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Head Office B-9, Budh Vihar, Alwar Through Its Chairman. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/01/2026 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.06.2009 passed by the Board of Directors, Rajasthan Gramin Bank whereby, appeal filed by the petitioner against penalty order dated 05.12.2005 has been dismissed. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Branch Manager in the respondent-Bank at its Branch Bhonkar (Alwar), where he was served with a charge-sheet dated 10.01.2005 wherein, allegations with regard to misuse of official position and committing serious illegalities/irregularities in sanction and distribution of loan were leveled. It is submitted that the petitioner replied to the charge- sheet categorically denying all the charges leveled against him. However, being not satisfied with the reply to the charge-sheet, [2026:RJ-JP:1421] (2 of 4) [CW-5355/2010] Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted enquiry against the petitioner and submitted his enquiry report. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and after holding the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him in the charge-sheet, imposed a penalty of reduction of pay to a lower scale in a time scale by four annual graded increments vide order dated 05.12.2005. Against such penalty order dated 05.12.2005, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority; however, the Appellate Authority in quite mechanical manner and without giving any reasons whatsoever dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner therefore, he approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9830/2006, which was allowed vide order dated 20.02.2009. Whereby, the order of Appellate Authority dated 09.06.2006 was quashed on the ground that the order passed by the Appellate Authority was laconic and non-speaking, hence the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner with liberty to the petitioner to submit additional pleas before the Appellate Authority. 3. Learned counsel submits that in compliance of order dated 20.02.2009 earlier passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted the additional pleas before the Appellate Authority however, the appeal filed by the petitioner has again been dismissed vide order dated 10.06.2009. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration, the grounds raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal as well as in [2026:RJ-JP:1421] (3 of 4) [CW-5355/2010] additional plea and appeal has been decided in mechanical manner whereas, the Appellate Authority was required to consider all the legitimate grounds raised by the petitioner. 5. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent and he submitted that there is no error or illegality in the order dated 10.06.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority and has prayed for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that while allowing earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 20.02.2009, the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority with the directions to pass afresh reasoned order after giving the opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the order is still cryptic and the points raised by the petitioner were not considered by the Appellate Authority. This Court examined the impugned order of Appellate Authority dated 10.06.2009 and finds that the Appellate Authority has properly taken note of all the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal and after taking note of such grounds, each and every ground has been dealt with and analyzed in detail; and has been decided by giving sound reasonings. 8. This Court while exercising powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India cannot treat itself to be Appellate Authority, nor can substitute the reasons assigned by the authority. The scope of judicial review is confined only to [2026:RJ-JP:1421] (4 of 4) [CW-5355/2010] examining the decision making process and not the decision itself. 9. In the instant case, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority has followed the decision making process and all the grounds raised by the petitioner have been examined on the basis of available record and thereafter, the grounds have been considered and analyzed meticulously. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 10.06.2009 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/16