Kailash Bahadur Kulshresht ha ...Pet it ioner v. Punj ab Nat ional Bank ot hers

dated 10.07.2014. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. From perusal of record, it is revealed that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 14.10.2010 comprising of Article of charge as Annexure-1, statement of imputation of charges in support of Article of charge as Annexure-II and list of documents as Annexure-III 1 and petitioner was asked to submit his statement of defence in writing to the Disciplinary Authority within seven days. Petitioner was informed that if he wishes to refer relevant records, then he is permitted to visit branch office Devprayag. In Annexure-I, which was supplied to petitioner alongwith charge sheet, the following charge was leveled against him:- accommodation “He did not conduct proper pre-sanction appraisal and failed to observe post sanction follow-up/control in large number of borrowal accounts thereby jeopardizing bank’s interest. He indulged in reckless lending and acted in violation of bank’s system and procedures and borrowers/group of borrowers putting amount of bank’s funds to jeopardy. A substantial amount of bank funds is proving difficult for recovery. He, thus, failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost integrity, constitute devotion misconduct in terms of Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1977.” diligence, which

3. Upon conclusion of inquiry, Inquiry Officer submitted report before Disciplinary Authority. Inquiry report was supplied to petitioner by Disciplinary Authority alongwith letter dated 29.07.20211, which is on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Based on the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority passed a punishment order. The grounds taken by petitioner for challenging the punishment order are as follows:- (i.) The charge leveled against the petitioner was vague consequently, petitioner could not defend himself effectively, thus, principles of natural justice were violated. (ii.) The documents referred to in the charge sheet 2 were not supplied to petitioner. (iii.) Petitioner was not given opportunity to cross examine the departmental witness. (iv.) The findings returned by Inquiry Officer are perverse.

4. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Bank, submits that disciplinary inquiry was held strictly as per Rules in which petitioner was given full opportunity of defending himself. He further submits that the allegation that principles of natural justice were violated, is baseless. He further submits that charge as mentioned in the charge sheet is clear and specific and not vague. He submits that due to acts of omission and commission of the petitioner, bank had to suffer huge financial loss as most of the loans sanctioned by petitioner could not be recovered, as they were not fully secured. He further submits that all documents, relied upon by the bank during disciplinary inquiry were supplied to petitioner. He refers to the charge sheet where it is mentioned that he can visit Branch Office, Devprayag, if he wishes to refer other relevant records. He further submits that petitioner did not avail opportunity of cross examination which was given to him. He further submits that Inquiry Officer has considered the entire material on record and held petitioner guilty and the finding of Inquiry officer is based on evidence on record and the allegation to the contrary made by petitioner is not correct.

5. We have gone through the punishment order passed by Disciplinary Authority, which is on record as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The Disciplinary 3 Authority has considered the material on record for arriving at the conclusion that petitioner is liable to be punished for misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority accordingly passed order of removal from service.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the Bank and perusing the material available on record, we do not find any procedural lapse or legal infirmity in the disciplinary enquiry. The punishment order was passed accordance with the applicable rules. Thus, challenge thrown by petitioner cannot be sustained.

7. Law is well settled that while exercising power of judicial review against an order of punishment passed by Disciplinary Authority, this Court cannot reassess the evidence nor it can interfere with the quantum of punishment. Such powers are available only to the Appellate Authority. Judicial review is concerned with the decision making process and not the decision itself. After hearing learned counsel for the Bank and perusing the record, we find that Disciplinary Inquiry was held as per Rules and it is not a case where Disciplinary Inquiry was vitiated due to some procedural lapses.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apparel Export Promotional Council vs. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 has held as under:- “17. Judicial review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the court, while exercising the power of judicial review, must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet 4 judgment the case against him, the court cannot substitute for that of the administrative authority on a matter which fell squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority.”

9. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the challenge thrown by petitioner to the orders passed by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority. Thus, there is not scope for interference. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

30.04.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F9 82, cn=ARTI SINGH 5

dated 10.07.2014. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. From perusal of record, it is revealed that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 14.10.2010 comprising of Article of charge as Annexure-1, statement of imputation of charges in support of Article of charge as Annexure-II and list of documents as Annexure-III 1 and petitioner was asked to submit his statement of defence in writing to the Disciplinary Authority within seven days. Petitioner was informed that if he wishes to refer relevant records, then he is permitted to visit branch office Devprayag. In Annexure-I, which was supplied to petitioner alongwith charge sheet, the following charge was leveled against him:- accommodation “He did not conduct proper pre-sanction appraisal and failed to observe post sanction follow-up/control in large number of borrowal accounts thereby jeopardizing bank’s interest. He indulged in reckless lending and acted in violation of bank’s system and procedures and borrowers/group of borrowers putting amount of bank’s funds to jeopardy. A substantial amount of bank funds is proving difficult for recovery. He, thus, failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost integrity, constitute devotion misconduct in terms of Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1977.” diligence, which

3. Upon conclusion of inquiry, Inquiry Officer submitted report before Disciplinary Authority. Inquiry report was supplied to petitioner by Disciplinary Authority alongwith letter dated 29.07.20211, which is on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Based on the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority passed a punishment order. The grounds taken by petitioner for challenging the punishment order are as follows:- (i.) The charge leveled against the petitioner was vague consequently, petitioner could not defend himself effectively, thus, principles of natural justice were violated. (ii.) The documents referred to in the charge sheet 2 were not supplied to petitioner. (iii.) Petitioner was not given opportunity to cross examine the departmental witness. (iv.) The findings returned by Inquiry Officer are perverse.

4. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Bank, submits that disciplinary inquiry was held strictly as per Rules in which petitioner was given full opportunity of defending himself. He further submits that the allegation that principles of natural justice were violated, is baseless. He further submits that charge as mentioned in the charge sheet is clear and specific and not vague. He submits that due to acts of omission and commission of the petitioner, bank had to suffer huge financial loss as most of the loans sanctioned by petitioner could not be recovered, as they were not fully secured. He further submits that all documents, relied upon by the bank during disciplinary inquiry were supplied to petitioner. He refers to the charge sheet where it is mentioned that he can visit Branch Office, Devprayag, if he wishes to refer other relevant records. He further submits that petitioner did not avail opportunity of cross examination which was given to him. He further submits that Inquiry Officer has considered the entire material on record and held petitioner guilty and the finding of Inquiry officer is based on evidence on record and the allegation to the contrary made by petitioner is not correct.

5. We have gone through the punishment order passed by Disciplinary Authority, which is on record as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The Disciplinary 3 Authority has considered the material on record for arriving at the conclusion that petitioner is liable to be punished for misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority accordingly passed order of removal from service.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the Bank and perusing the material available on record, we do not find any procedural lapse or legal infirmity in the disciplinary enquiry. The punishment order was passed accordance with the applicable rules. Thus, challenge thrown by petitioner cannot be sustained.

7. Law is well settled that while exercising power of judicial review against an order of punishment passed by Disciplinary Authority, this Court cannot reassess the evidence nor it can interfere with the quantum of punishment. Such powers are available only to the Appellate Authority. Judicial review is concerned with the decision making process and not the decision itself. After hearing learned counsel for the Bank and perusing the record, we find that Disciplinary Inquiry was held as per Rules and it is not a case where Disciplinary Inquiry was vitiated due to some procedural lapses.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apparel Export Promotional Council vs. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 has held as under:- “17. Judicial review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the court, while exercising the power of judicial review, must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet 4 judgment the case against him, the court cannot substitute for that of the administrative authority on a matter which fell squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority.”

9. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the challenge thrown by petitioner to the orders passed by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority. Thus, there is not scope for interference. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

30.04.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F9 82, cn=ARTI SINGH 5