Held, since no financial loss was caused to bank, on the contrary decision to reduce loan amount was taken in bank’s interest, and fact that in appellant’s service span of 28 years, no allegations were made against him, punishment of removal for charges proved and misconduct established, is too harsh and disproportionate. Substitution of punishment of removal with compulsory retirement, when warranted.
[Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, (2022) 4 SCC 385]