2026:JHHC:21336-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.369 of 2026 ----- Vijay Kumar Rawoot, son of Shri Saranan Rawoot, resident of Gujrat Colony, Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. .......... Appellant. -Versus- 1. Bank of India having its Head Office at : Star House, C-5, G. Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, P.O. Bandra East, P.S. Bandra Kurla Complex, District-Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra. 2. Zonal Manager, Bank of India Zonal Office, Bokaro Zone, having its office at E-17, 1st Floor, City Centre, Sector-IV, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. 3. Assistant General Manager, Bank of India Zonal Office, Bokaro Zone, having its office at E-17, 1st Floor, City Centre, Sector-IV, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. 4. Chief Manager, Bank of India Zonal Office, Bokaro Zone, having its office at E-17, 1st Floor City Centre, Sector-IV, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate ----- Order No.02 Date: 20.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges the learned single Judge’s order dated 11th May, 2026 dismissing the appellant’s W.P.(S) No.1571 of 2021. 3. In this case, the charge against the appellant was held as proved on account of his admission in the reply to the charge-sheet. The disciplinary authority had imposed a penalty of reduction of pay to two lower stages in the time scale of pay up to and inclusive of the date of superannuation, i.e., 31st August, 2020. However, the appellate authority has reduced this penalty to one lower stage in the time scale of pay. 2026:JHHC:21336-DB 2 4. Mr Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant has had a blemish-less career and it is hardly two months before he attained the age of superannuation that this penalty has been imposed. He submitted that the penalty as imposed is a major penalty and has affected the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. He further submitted that this was not a case of any serious misconduct on the part of the appellant but a lapse owing to work pressure for which the appellant expressed his regrets. Viewed from this perspective, Mr Sinha contended that the penalty is disproportionate. 5. We have considered Mr Sinha’s contention and the material on record. 6. The appellant was charged with gross violation of the Bank’s lending norms, systems and procedures while processing the loan proposals. There is an allegation that the appellant had failed to exercise due diligence while appraising and sanctioning the loan proposals referred to in the charge-sheet. There was also a charge that the appellant unduly accommodated the borrowers and failed to ensure end use of funds, the details of which were supplied in the charge-sheet. 7. Besides, there were also certain other allegations concerning the violation of the Bank’s lending norms, systems and procedures. Therefore, this cannot be said to be a case where the charges against the appellant were not serious. 8. The appellant accepted the charges but explained that he was concentrating on the quality of the advances and, due to work 2026:JHHC:21336-DB 3 pressure and some lack of knowledge, some lapses may have occurred unknowingly. He also expressed his regrets and urged that his case be considered sympathetically. 9. Considering the appellant’s response, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of reduction to two lower stages in a time scale of pay. The appellate authority has further shown indulgence and reduced the penalty to that of reduction to one lower stage instead of two. 10. Given that the disciplinary and appellate authorities have already indulged the petitioner, this cannot be regarded as a case in which the principle of proportionality has been breached or in which the penalty imposed shocks the conscience of the Court. Ultimately, this was a case involving a bank official dealing with public funds. As a result of the lapses, loan recovery suffers, and the impact is ultimately felt by the taxpayers/depositors. 11. Therefore, for the above reasons, we cannot find fault with the view taken by the learned single Judge in the impugned order dated 11th May, 2026. 12. This L.P.A. is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 20th July, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 22.07.2026