VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

668 DECISION -326
or rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. If
there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance
with principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the
ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is
imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to
substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy
of penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal
to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty
if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is
based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or
extraneous to the matter.
(326)
(A) Termination — under Banking Regulation Act
(B) Probation of Offenders Act
(C) Misconduct — moral turpitude
Bank employee convicted of an offence involving
moral turpitude but released under sec. 4(1) of
Probation of Offenders Act, not liable for termination
of service under sec. 10 (1) (b) of Banking
Regulation Act as it tantamounts to his suffering
disqualification attaching to a conviction of an
offence.
Zonal Manager, Indian Bank vs. Parupureddy Satyanarayana,
1990 (1) ALT AP 260
The respondent was an employee (member of Sub-staff) of
the Indian Bank. He was prosecuted and convicted of the offence
under Sec. 354 IPC (outraging the modesty of a woman) and
sentenced to one year R.I. On appeal, the Sessions Judge by his
judgment and order dated 22.3.88, while confirming the conviction,
modified the sentence and ordered him to be released under Sec. 4