The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 ---- Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bokaro Zone, E-17, 1st Floor, City Centre, Sector-4, B.S. City, P.O. P.S. & District Bokaro. … … Appellant [Respondent No. 3 in W.P.(S) No. 6201 of 2015] Versus 1. Raj Kumar Mandal son of Shri Munilal Mandal, resident of Raj Mobile Centre, At Post Dilalpur Chowk, P.S. Manihari, District Katihar, Bihar. … … Respondent (Petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6201 of 2015) 2. Bank of India, Star House, C-5, „G‟ Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, P.O. Bandra (East), P.S. Bandra, District Mumbai, State Maharashtra through its Chairman. 3. Deputy General Manager & Appellate Authority, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bokaro Zone, E-17, 1st Floor, City Centre, Sector-4, B.S. City, P.O. P.S. & District Bokaro. 4. Deputy Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bokaro Zone, E-17, 1st Floor, City Centre, Sector-4, B.S. City, P.O. P.S. & District Bokaro. 5. Enquiry Officer, Sr. Manager, Vigilance Unit (East), Bank of India, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S. Sarani, District Kolkata. … … Proforma Respondents (Respondents in W.P.(S) No. 6201 of 2015) ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant-Bank For the Res. No. 1 ------ : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate -------- Order No. 06 : Dated 30th July, 2024 Sujit Narayan Prasad, ACJ: I.A. No. 1178 of 2024 1. The instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 136 days in preferring the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. - 1 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank, referring to the averments made in the Interlocutory Application, has submitted that after disposal of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the bank never communicated impugned order dated 19.05.2023 to the Bank and only after communication having been made by the Registry of this Court vide letter dated 14.08.2023, which was received the Bokaro Zonal Office on 12.09.2023, the appellant get knowledge about passing of impugned order. 4. On getting knowledge that the Bank has lost the case, the appellant immediately approached the Headquarter for getting permission to prefer intra-court appeal and on 30.12.2023 and since the certified copy of the order was not with the appellant, as such after obtaining the certified copy on 09.01.2024, the present counsel was appointed by the appellant6 to file intra-court appeal against the impugned order. 5. In the Interlocutory Application it has further been submitted that from the certified copy of order, it would be evident that an application was earlier filed for obtaining the certified copy of impugned order on behalf of earlier counsel for the bank on 19.05.2023 itself, which was issued on 26.07.2023 but the then counsel for the bank did not provide the certified copy to the bank nor any - 2 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 communication was made in this regard. 6. Submission has been made that for the reasons aforesaid the appeal has been filed after delay of 136 days but there was no deliberate intention of the appellant in filing the instant intra-court appeal belatedly and only due to unavoidable circumstance, the appeal could not be filed in time. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank has further submitted that the memo of appeal has been filed on good grounds and if the delay will not be condoned, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 8.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1-writ petitioner though opposed the prayer made in Interlocutory Application for condonation of delay but has not filed any response to the said Interlocutory Application. 9. This Court, considering the reasons assigned in the application, condones the delay in filing the appeal.
Decision
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1178 of 2024 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 Prayer 11. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6201 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned Single - 3 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 Judge has quashed and set aside the order of dismissal dated 24.10.2014 issued by the disciplinary authority as also the order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of dismissal, by disposing the writ petition. Facts of the case: 12. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under: - 13. The petitioner was appointed as Cash Clerk at Bank of India Suriya Branch in Bokaro Zone on 23.04.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that during course of transactions of money, various customers including regular customers with substantial amount used to come to deposit the same and if any problem arises in depositing the money, the petitioner first used to remove the problem and then only receipt was given and necessary credit used to be made in the account of the customers. 14. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging therein that while he was working as Cash-Clerk in Suriya Branch, Bokaro Zone, from 13.01.2010 to 02.12.2013, some irregularities have been reported to the effect that the petitioner received cash of Rs. 2,50,000/- from one Sajjad Ali to deposit the same in his saving bank - 4 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 account, but the same was not deposited and the petitioner handed over the counter-foil to him. Thereafter, when Sajjad Ali came to Bank to withdraw Rs. 1,50,000, he found that his account did not have sufficient balance. Therefore, when complaint was made by Sajjad Ali and only then the petitioner deposited the amount in his account. 15. Similar type of allegation is that on 13.11.2013, the petitioner received cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- from one Rafi Ahmad to deposit the same in his account, but the same was not deposited and when Rafi Ahmad made complaint, petitioner deposited the amount in his account. There are similar three other allegations against the petitioner for receiving the amount from the customers and not depositing the same in their accounts and after the complaints were made the amounts were deposited in their respective accounts. 16. The writ petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 13.01.2014 regarding the irregularities committed by the petitioner. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply stating inter alia therein that he has not misappropriated any amount and all amounts are duly credited in the respective accounts of the account holders. However, being dissatisfied with the reply, a departmental proceeding was initiated, as per the provisions - 5 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 of para 5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002 and the petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 17.07.2014 containing altogether four charges for the act of pocketing cash, which were deposited by different customers and on repeated occasions by abusing trust reposed by these customers. 17. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply, whereby, while admitting the charges alleged, the petitioner tendered unconditional apology for the irregularities as the same was done bona fidely and ignorantly. However, the enquiry proceeded by appointing the enquiry officer who submitted enquiry report dated 13.08.2014 stating therein that charges stood proved against the petitioner. 18. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why extreme punishment of dismissal from Bank‟s service without notice in terms of clause 6(a) of the Settlement dated 10.04.2002 be not imposed. 19. The petitioner once again tendered his unconditional apology and requested to exonerate him from charges, as the punishment proposed was disproportionate to the proved charges. 20. However, the disciplinary authority negated the plea for sympathetic consideration of the petitioner and awarded the major punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated - 6 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 24.10.2014, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal which was also rejected vide order dated 05.06.2015. 21. Being aggrieved with the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellant authority, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6201 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order/judgment dated 19.05.2023, against which instant intra-court appeal has been filed. Argument on behalf of appellant-bank: 22. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-bank has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds: i. Several complaints were received from the customers of not crediting the money deposited by them in their account though counter-foil was issued by the petitioner. After receiving the complaints, explanation was sought for from the petitioner for pocketing the money of customers and on complaint being made he used to deposit the money in their account. ii. Submission has been made that the petitioner- employee has virtually admitted his guilt as would be evident from the representation submitted by him under his signature at Annexure 10 to the writ petition, - 7 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 wherein he has specifically stated that “my intention was not bad and I have returned the entire amount to the customers”, but the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate these facts into consideration and contrarily taking note of the fact that the complainants have deposed that they have no grudge against the petitioner and they withdrew their respective complaints and further the petitioner has deposited the money in the complainants‟ account, therefore, quashed and set aside the impugned order. iii. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors [2021 SC Live Law 70], wherein it has been stated that in the similar fact situation where the delinquent has virtually admitted his guilt and was ready to bear the loss suffered by the bank on account of loss suffered to the Bank, the Hon‟ble Apex Court refused to interfere with the impugned order of punishment. iv. The learned Single Judge has also not considered the well-known principle in banking service that banking employees while dealing with public money if indulged in any financial irregularity the same leads to - 8 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 loss of confidence of public in banking system and the writ petitioner herein used to collect huge money from the customers and in token thereof he also issued counter-foil of it but he did not deposit the amount rather he pocketed the amount and when customers complains about the same, he used to deposit the same, which is misappropriation of money, as per law settled by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. S.N. Goyal [(2008) 8 SCC 92]. v. It has further been submitted that the modus operandi as adopted by the writ petitioner goes to prove that he failed to protect the interest of the Bank and failed to perform his duty with utmost devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty, so there is loss of confidence against the writ petitioner for which proportionate punishment has been awarded by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference. Argument on behalf of respondent-writ petitioner 24. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent- - 9 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 writ petitioner has taken the following ground while defending the order passed by learned Single Judge: I.That the enquiry officer has misread the evidence in proving the charge, as the complainants by submitting their applications have categorically stated that they have no complaint whatsoever against the petitioner as such the petitioner may be exonerated from the charge, therefore, once the complainants have stated that they have no complaint against the delinquent, there was no occasion for the enquiry officer to prove the charges. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration these facts if has quashed and set aside the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from an error. II.Learned counsel further submits that from the enquiry report it is evident that the irregularities was trivial one for which even there was no loss to the Bank as there is nothing in the enquiry report to show that those minor irregularities committed by the petitioner are for any vested interest or there is any allegation of forgery, embezzlement, misappropriation of public money etc. III.Learned counsel lastly submits that in spite of the admitted facts that no loss was caused to the Bank or - 10 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 any of the customers, the extreme penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the petitioner, which being proportionally disproportionate to the nature of alleged/proved charges, the learned Single Judge took note of these facts, and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the disciplinary and appellate authority and remitted the same to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration on the point of quantum of punishment other than an order of removal or dismissal or compulsory retirement, which cannot be said to suffer from error and requires no interference by this Court. Analysis: 25. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge as also the orders passed by the administrative order. 26. From the pleadings available on record, the issues which require consideration is as to: I. Whether the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while remanding the matter on the point of quantum that the disciplinary authority is to pass order of punishment afresh other than the punishment of removal or dismissal or compulsory retirement, can be said to be just and proper? II. Whether considering the nature of allegation, - 11 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 which pertains to the bankers of losing the confidence of the respondent-bank on the basis of commission of misconduct, in dealing with public money, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in showing interference with the enquiry report can be said to be proper and justified? III. Whether in the case where the guilt has been admitted by tendering apology by the respondent-writ petitioner, which amounts to admission by the petitioner, can such premium be given by interfering with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer? 27. All the issues since are inter-linked, therefore, they are taken up together. 28. Admitted fact herein is that the petitioner while working as Cash Clerk during the period 23.04.2010 to 02.12.2013 in the appellant-Bank several written complaints were received by several customers that he used to pocket the amount deposited by the customers and the said amount has not been deposited in their bank accounts and when complaint was made the same was deposited. 29. Pursuant thereto, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant and memorandum of charge was served upon. For ready reference, the memo of charge is reproduced as under: - 12 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 “During your tenure as Cash Clerk at Bank’s Suriya Branch from 23.04.2010 to 02.12.2013, you are alleged t to have committed the following acts of gross misconduct. CHARGE-1 On 10.09.2013, you received cash Rs. 2.50 lakhs for depositing in the Savings Bank A’c No.480510110000697 of Sajjad Ali. Instead of accounting for Rs.2.50 lakhs in Bank’s books by depositing the cash in the above A/e No.480510110000697 on 10.09 2013, you pocketed the said amount of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. On 12.11.2013, the representative of Sajjad Ali, visited the Branch to withdraw Rs. 1.50 lakhs from the aforesaid account and it was noticed that the account did not have sufficient balance to allow the withdrawal of Rs 1.50 lakhs as the amount of Rs. 2.50 lakhs deposited earlier in the account on 10.09.2013 was not found credited to the account either on 10.9.2013 or thereafter up to the time of lodging the complaint on 12.11.2013. When the said representative countered you with the counter foil dated 10.9.2013 of Rs. 2.50 lakhs, to cover up your misdeeds of pocketing Rs. 2.53 lakhs on 10.9.2013, you deposited in cash, Rs. 250 lakhs in the account No.480510110000697 of Sajjad Ali on 12.11.2013 by filling a paying-in-slip for Rs. 2.50 lakhs dated 12.11.2013 in favour of savings Bank A/e No. 450510110000697. CHARGE-II On 13.11 2013, you received cash of Rs 1 lakh for depositing in the SB A/c No. 480510100011451 of Rafi Ahmed Shahi. Instead of accounting for Rs. 1 lakh in Bank’s books by depositing the cash in the above Account No. 180510100011451 on 13-11 2013, you pocketed the sand amount of Rs. 1 lakh. On 26.12 2013. Rati Ahated Shalu sisited the Branch to transfer funds frose an aforesand Savings Bank A/c No 48051010001 to a Fuxed Deposit A/c and came to know that Rs. 1 Lakh deposited earlier in his aforesaid account on 12 11 2013 wasa not credited in that said account either on 13.11.2013 or thereafter up to 26 12:2013. Upon making enquiries by the Branch Manager with you about the above incident reported to him, to cover up your misdeed of pocketing Rs. 1 lakh on 13 11.2013, you deposited cash of Rs. - 13 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 1.00 lakh in the aforesaid account on 27.12.2013 by filling/signing a paying-in-slip for Rs. 1 lakh dated 27.12.2013 in favour of A/c. No. 480510100011451. CHARGE-III On 11.11.2013, you received cash Rs. 76,000/- from Sahil Jain for depositing in the Savings Bank A/C No.49921010005886 of Shri Akash Kumar. Instead of accounting for Rs. 76,000/- in Bank’s books by depositing the cash in the above Account No. 490210110005886 on 11.11.2013, you pocketed the said amount of Rs. 76,000/-. On 25.11.2013, Sahil Jain complained to the Branch Manager that the amount of Rs. 76,000/ deposited in the aforesaid account No.490210110005886 on 11. 11 2013 was not credited to the sard account either on 11.11.2013 or thereafter up to the time of lodgme.at of the complaint on 25.11.2013. Upon making enquiries by the Branch Manager with you about the above incident repartes so him, to cover up your misdeed of pocketing Rs. 76,000/- on 11.11.2013, you deposited cash of Rs 76,000/- in the aforesaid account on 25.11.2013. CHARGE-IV i. On 27.12.2013, you deposited cash aggregating Rs. 1.85 lakhs in the accounts of the following accountholders to cover up your earlier misdeeds of pocketing these amounts deposited in the following accounts. Sl. No. 1. the Account Name of holder M/s Gupta Polytubes P. Ltd. Account No. 440230100000078 Amount Deposited Rs. 70,000/- 2. 3. Shri Deb Kumar Mitra 496310110005276 Rs. 15,000/- Shri Mahendra Mandal 480532100000006 Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 1,85,000/- ii. To cover up your misdeed of pocketing Rs. 70,000/- from the account No. 440230100000078 of M/s Gupta Polytubes P. Ltd. On 19.11.2013, you deposited cash of Rs, 70.000/-on 27.12 2013 by filling/signing a paying-in-slip of Rs. 70.000/ dated 27 12 2013 in - 14 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 favor of M/s Gupta Polytubes P. Ltd. iii.To cover up your shisdeed of pocketing Rs 15,000/- from the Account No. 496310110005276 of Shri Deb Kumar Mitra on 25.11.2011, you deposited cash of Rs. 15,000-on 27.12.2013. by filling/signing a paying-in-slip of Rs. 15,000/- dated 27 12 2013 in favour of Shri Deb Kumar Mitra. iv. To cover up your misdeed of pocketing Rs. 1,00,000/- from Account No. 480532100000006 of Shri Mahendra Mandal on 23.11.2013, you deposited cash of Rs. 1 lakh on 27.12.2013 by filling/signing a paying-in-slip of Rs. 1 lakh dated 27.12.2013 in favour of Shri Mahendra Mandal 2. Your aforesaid acts of pocketing cash deposited by various customers on repeated occasions by abusing the trust reposed in you by these customers, if proved, would amount to act of gross misconduct under Para 5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement date, 10.04.2002 which reads as under- Para 5 (i) "Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss." 30. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted enquiry report. It appears that even during preliminary hearing on 13.08.2014, the delinquent employee admitted the list of documents presented before him as also on the same day the delinquent employee submitted a letter wherein he admitted all the charged leveled against him voluntarily. 31. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and found the charges leveled against the delinquent true, which was placed before the disciplinary authority, who on appreciation of the documents as also the enquiry report has found that the report of the enquiry officer is based on proper - 15 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 evaluation and guilt admitted by the delinquent, as such taking into account the seriousness of the charges, which were fully proved, imposed the punishment of „dismissal from bank‟s service without notice‟ in terms of clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. Being aggrieved the delinquent employee preferred appeal which was rejected by passing detailed order by the appellate authority. 32. It is admitted case that the petitioner has nowhere complaint about non-observance of principles of natural justice in conducting departmental proceeding. His only defence is that the complainants have withdrawn the complaints stating that they have no grudge against the petitioner. Further ground taken by the petitioner is that he later deposited the said amount in the respective bank account of the customers thereby no loss has been caused either to the bank or to the customers. Therefore, in such situation, the order of punishment like dismissal from service is not in commensurate with the charge. 33. We have perused the enquiry report as also the order passed by the disciplinary and appellate authority and found therefrom that the charge has fully been proved on evaluation on the basis of documentary and oral evidence. The counter-foil showing deposit of money by the customers - 16 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 show the fact of the deposit of money by the customers but when after two-three months the customers comes to the bank to withdraw the said amount from their respective accounts it shows that the said amount was not deposited in their account and only when the complaints are being made to the authority of the concerned bank, the delinquent used to deposit the said amount in the account of said customer/complainant. Further, it is not that it was only one instance, such misconduct was done rather number of complains have been made by the customers. 34. Considering such conduct of the petitioner, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in which the charge has fully been proved, basis upon which the impugned punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted upon the petitioner, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. 35. In the instant case, the money was deposited by the customer but the same was not credited to the bank account of the customers by the delinquent employee and only when the complaint was made by the customer/complainant after a month or two, the said amount was deposited by the delinquent employee in their respective accounts. Argument in this regard has been advanced on behalf of petitioner that the said money was temporarily embezzled but even - 17 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 otherwise also it amounts to criminal misappropriation of the money which is an offence prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. However, we are not concerned with that issue of criminal liability of the delinquent employee as it is alleged that no criminal case has been lodged by the complainant/customer. 36. Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in State Bank of India & Ors Vs. S.N. Goyal [(2008) 8 SCC 92] has been pleased to hold at paragraph 41 as under: “41. At the relevant point of time the respondent was functioning as a Branch Manager. A bank survives on the trust of its clientele and constituents. The position of the Manager of a bank is a matter of great trust. The employees of the bank in particular the Manager are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the bank. Any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds of the bank or its customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. When a borrower makes any payment towards a loan, the Manager of the bank receiving such amount is required to credit it immediately to the borrower’s account. If the matter is to be viewed lightly or leniently it will encourage other bank employees to indulge in such activities thereby undermining the entire banking system. The request for reducing the punishment is misconceived and rejected.” 37. Law is equally well settled, on the issue of quantum of punishment, by the Hon‟ble Apex Court while dealing with the case of the employees working in the financial - 18 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 institutions like the bank, that the bankers are supposed to perform their duty with utmost sincerity and integrity and they are to be treated differently to that of civil servants on the ground that they are dealing with the public money and their services are based on confidence of the bank. 38. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar, [(2003) 4 SCC 364], wherein it has been held as under: “14.A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1194] it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.” 39. Further, in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. - 19 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 M Duraisamy reported in (2022) 7 SCC 475 wherein at paragraph 17 the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that there cannot be any leniency and undue sympathy in the matter of punishment awarded to the bankers. 40. For ready reference paragraph 15 and 17 of the judgment reads as under: 15. Merely because the respondent employee had worked for 39 years and in those years, there was no punishment imposed and/or that he voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount along with penal interest and therefore there was no loss to the Government/Department cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and substitute the same from removal to that of compulsory retirement. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court have, in fact, considered the nature and gravity of the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer. Therefore, both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 17. Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee. What about the loss caused to the department by way of goodwill, name and fame of the department and its reliability amongst the public? By such a misconduct/act on the part of the delinquent officer, the reputation of the department had been tarnished. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and to substitute the same to that of compulsory retirement. - 20 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 41. We are conscious of the law that the interference with the order administrative authorities in disciplinary proceedings in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. 42. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in Union of India & Others vs. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SSC 610 wherein at paragraphs 12 and 13, the following guidelines have been laid down for showing interference in the decision taken by the disciplinary authority and not to interfere with the decision, which reads hereunder as: “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. 1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced - 21 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). re-appreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 43. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. v. Abrar Ali [(2017) 4 SCC 507], have laid down following guidelines for interference by the High Court in the matter of punishment imposed on conclusion of the departmental proceeding. The extract of relevant passages, i.e., para 13 and 14, are referred herein below: “13. Contrary to findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the High Court accepted the version of the Respondent that he fell ill and was being treated by a local doctor without assigning any reasons. It was held by the Disciplinary Authority that the Unit had better medical facilities which could have been availed by the Respondent if he was really - 22 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 suffering from illness. It was further held that the delinquent did not produce any evidence of treatment by a local doctor. The High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts which tantamounts to reappreciation of evidence. It is settled law that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya, [(2011) 4 SCC 584], this Court held as follows: "7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. … … … … … … …" 44. It is, thus, evident from the judgment rendered in Union of India & Others vs. P. Gunasekaran (Supra) and Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. vs. Abrar Ali (Supra) that the guidelines have been formulated that in which condition interference can be made to the order of disciplinary authority and in which condition there cannot - 23 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 be any interference with such decision. 45. This Court taking into consideration the limited scope of judicial review with respect to decision passed by the administrative authorities in a departmental proceeding as also considering the nature of allegation which is serious in nature and is not expected from the bankers which ultimately caused loss of confidence to the people at general, and applying the principle laid down in the cases referred hereinabove, has gone across to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge has found therefrom that the learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that since complainants have withdrew their complaints and the petitioner has deposited the amount in their respective account, as such no loss caused to the bank, therefore, the punishment of „dismissal form service‟ is disproportionate to the charges. 46. But this Court is not in agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge for the reason that yardstick while dealing with the case of bankers is totally different to that of other civilians as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors Vs. S.N. Goyal (supra) wherein it has specifically stated that any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds of the bank or its customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. - 24 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024 47. When a borrower makes any payment towards a loan, the Manager of the bank receiving such amount is required to credit it immediately to the borrower’s account. 48. If the matter is to be viewed lightly or leniently it will encourage other bank employees to indulge in such activities thereby undermining the entire banking system. The request for reducing the punishment is misconceived and rejected. 49. Considering the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge requires interference. 50. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside. 51. Accordingly, instant intra-court appeal stands allowed. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 52. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Alankar/ A.F.R. - 25 - L.P.A. No. 59 of 2024