High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Karuna Shakar Pandey Respondent :- Appellate Authority/ Joint Secretary Cooperative Societies, Lucknow And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Pradeep Kumar Sharma,Ram Kishun Misra,Rupendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Misra,C.S.C.,Kunwar Bahadur Srivastava,Yashwant Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Petitioner, a clerk at Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Kanpur was served with a charge sheet dated 20.09.2004 that in collusion with one other employee viz. Ram Shankar Tiwari, he committed financial irregularities and amount of Rs. 13,69,060/- was embezzled.

2. Petitioner has sought documents, however, same were not provided to him and he was also not allowed to peruse the documents, therefore, he was not able to submit his reply to charge sheet.

3. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner was put under suspension by an order dated 18.11.2004 which was challenged in Writ A No. 53755/2004 filed by petitioner and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2004 and petitioner was granted time to submit his reply.

4. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in absence of relevant documents, petitioner has submitted a short reply dated 14.01.2005, however, without providing the documents, inquiry report dated 25.01.2005 was submitted whereby all charges were held to be proved only on a ground that petitioner has not submitted any reasonable explanation, without any independent evidence to prove the charge.

5. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 29.01.2005 issued by Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner thereafter filed another Writ A No. 13410/2005 whereby operation of said notice was kept in abeyance by an order dated 03.03.2005. Later on, said writ petition was dismissed being premature by an order dated 20.06.2006 and the interim order was vacated.

6. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 27.07.2006 before Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has also submitted additional communication/reply dated 02.04.2007 and 14.07.2007 and finally by an order dated 18.08.2008, Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service on basis of proved charges. An appeal thereof was also dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2015.

7. Aforesaid both orders are impugned in this writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in a case where a delinquent has not submitted his reply or submitted a vague reply to charge sheet, Inquiry Officer is under legal obligation to prove charges framed against delinquent on basis of independent procedure, material evidence or testimony and charges cannot be proved only on basis that no reply was filed or reply was vague. The petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to show cause notice, however, without considering contents of it, only on basis of inquiry report, petitioner was dismissed from service.

9. Learned counsel also submits that in present case, decision making process was defective and impugned order is liable to be interfered and since petitioner has already crossed age of superannuation and there is no procedure to continue disciplinary proceedings after retirement, this Court may not remand matter to continue disciplinary proceedings from the stage where it became defective.

10. Per contra, Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for respondents submits that order was passed on basis of evidence documentary available. Petitioner has committed financial embezzlement along with other employee of bank and has caused financial loss to bank. Principles of natural justice were followed by inquiry officer as well as by Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has filed a very vague reply and since charges were based on documents and financial irregularities remained unexplained, therefore, charges were held to be proved and it is well settled that in case of financial embezzlement, a major penalty of dismissal from service can be passed.

11. I have carefully perused the inquiry report dated 27.01.2005 wherein after mentioning vague reply submitted by petitioner, all charges were held to be proved as petitioner was failed to submit any reply or evidence. Inquiry Committee has not taken any endeavour to prove the charges on basis of documents and independent material such as statements. For reference, relevant part of inquiry report is mentioned below :- षकयण हह वरन धणरण 1 शश करणण शशकर पणणडडय कक पडषषत आरकपपत मम कक ल 5 “ आरकप सशगषठत षकए षवरद ककई ठकस तथयणतमक वसतकसससषत कण उलडख शश गयड हड। उन आरकपप कड मम सभश आरकपप कक असतय भमक पणणडडय नड नहश मनगढत व बडबकषनयणद बतणयण हह। उनकड दणरण इस समबध मम ककई सणकय पसतकत न करनण उनहड आरकपप सड दकष मकक नहश करतण हह। इसश पकणर धणरण 2 एवश धणरण 3 मम शश पणणडडय दणरण सणकय षवहशन तकर पसतकत षकयड गयड हह जक सणकय न हकनड कड कणरण महणतवहशन हह धणरण 4 जजन कणगजणतप कड मणशग कड मड शश पणणडडय दणरण समबनध मम उलडख षकयण हह उनहड कणयणरलय पतणशक 9291 षदनणशक 17-1-05 दणरण उनहड पडषषत षकयण जण चककण हह। अतत कणयणरलय पतणशक 4995/पशण0/2004-05 षद० 20-9-04 दणरण पडषषत आरकप पत कड पतयकतर मम उनकड दणरण पडषषत षद० 14-1-05 कड जबणब कड आधणर पर सभश आरकप यसणवत जसद पणयड जणतड हह। ”

12. Court also takes note that petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed reply to show cause notice, however, Disciplinary Authority only on basis of inquiry report has held that charges were proved and punishment of dismissal from service was passed. Relevant part of said order dated 18.08.2008 is mentioned hereinafter :- “ यतत सषचव उ०प० सहकणरश सशससणगत सडवणमणडल लखनऊ नड अपनड अनडकप पतप कड मणधयम सड शश पणणडडय कक धनरणषश जमण करनड हडतक ममकण षदयण गयण तसण शश पणणडडय दणरण भश धन जमण करनड कड आशणसन षदयण गयण परनतक शश पणणडडय दणरण बबक कड अपहररत धनरणषश कक जमण नहश षकयण गयण हह। षवषनयमणवलश 1975 कड पतणशक 1139/मश0/12-479/ यतत सषचव उ०प० सहकणरश सशससणगत सडवणमणडल लखनऊ नड बबक दणरण पडषषत ससचनणओश/ अषभलडखप कड आधणर पर शश करणणशशकर पणणडडय वगर-3 कक बबक कक सडवण सड पदचयकत (षडसषमस) षकयड जणनड हडतक बबक दणरण पसतणषवत दणड पर समयक षवचणरकपरणनत उ०प० सहकणरश सषमषत कमरचणरश कड अनतगरत अपनश सहमषत सडवण अनक० कर०/08-09 षदनणशक कणयणरलय अगसत 07-2008 दणरण पदणन कर दश हह। और यतत उपरकक समग सससषत एशव सषचव उ०प० सहकणरश सशससणगत सडवणमणडल लखनऊ कड उपरकक सहमषत पत सड पशणसक महकदय कक अवगत करणयण गयण जजस पर सकम अजधकणरश / पशणसक महकदय दणरण शश करणणशशकर पणणडडय कमरचणरश वगर-3 कक बबक कक सडवण सड सडवणचयकत करनड हडतक अपनश सहमषत षदनणशक 18-08-08 षवषनयम सश0 87 कक पदणन कर दश हब। अतत सकम अजधकणरश/ पशणसक महकदय कक अनकमषत षदनणशक 18-08-08 कड अनकपणलन कम मम शश करणणशशकर पणणडडय कमरचणरश वगर-3 कक ततकणल पभणव सड बबक कक सडवण सड सडवणचचकत (षडसषमस) षकयण जणतण हह। ”

13. As referred above, Disciplinary Authority has not even mentioned contents of reply submitted to show cause notice nor there was any consideration of it.

14. At this stage, Court also takes note of few paragraphs of a judgment of Supreme Court in The State of Rajasthan and others vs. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 INSC 592 : 2024 SCC Online SC 1908 wherein following paragraphs of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 were relied upon. For reference, relevant paragraph is quoted below :- “23. The scope of examination and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Constitution’) in a case of the present nature, is no longer res integra. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, a 3-Judge Bench stated: ‘7. … The High Court is not constituted in a Article 226 of proceeding the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant : it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.’ (emphasis supplied)”

15. In aforesaid circumstances, Court can interfere in disciplinary proceedings either it was a case of no evidence or conclusions were arbitrary and capricious and that no reasonable person can arrive at that conclusion.

16. Contents of inquiry report clearly demonstrates that no material was examined in support of all charges as well as no statement was recorded to prove charges, therefore, conclusion that all charges were proved is perverse as well as Appellate Authority has also not considered above aspects. Therefore, Court is of considered opinion that it is a case of no evidence.

17. Court also takes note that respondents have not brought on record any provision that in given circumstances, inquiry can be continued after retirement of delinquent and admittedly petitioner has already crossed age of superannuation, therefore, matter cannot be remitted back to commence inquiry at the stage where there was procedural lapse.

18. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 18.08.2008, 23.10.2015 and 31.05.2017 are set aside and its legal consequence shall follow.

19. Writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 N. Sinha NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Karuna Shakar Pandey Respondent :- Appellate Authority/ Joint Secretary Cooperative Societies, Lucknow And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Pradeep Kumar Sharma,Ram Kishun Misra,Rupendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Misra,C.S.C.,Kunwar Bahadur Srivastava,Yashwant Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Petitioner, a clerk at Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Kanpur was served with a charge sheet dated 20.09.2004 that in collusion with one other employee viz. Ram Shankar Tiwari, he committed financial irregularities and amount of Rs. 13,69,060/- was embezzled.

2. Petitioner has sought documents, however, same were not provided to him and he was also not allowed to peruse the documents, therefore, he was not able to submit his reply to charge sheet.

3. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner was put under suspension by an order dated 18.11.2004 which was challenged in Writ A No. 53755/2004 filed by petitioner and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2004 and petitioner was granted time to submit his reply.

4. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in absence of relevant documents, petitioner has submitted a short reply dated 14.01.2005, however, without providing the documents, inquiry report dated 25.01.2005 was submitted whereby all charges were held to be proved only on a ground that petitioner has not submitted any reasonable explanation, without any independent evidence to prove the charge.

5. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 29.01.2005 issued by Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner thereafter filed another Writ A No. 13410/2005 whereby operation of said notice was kept in abeyance by an order dated 03.03.2005. Later on, said writ petition was dismissed being premature by an order dated 20.06.2006 and the interim order was vacated.

6. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 27.07.2006 before Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has also submitted additional communication/reply dated 02.04.2007 and 14.07.2007 and finally by an order dated 18.08.2008, Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service on basis of proved charges. An appeal thereof was also dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2015.

7. Aforesaid both orders are impugned in this writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in a case where a delinquent has not submitted his reply or submitted a vague reply to charge sheet, Inquiry Officer is under legal obligation to prove charges framed against delinquent on basis of independent procedure, material evidence or testimony and charges cannot be proved only on basis that no reply was filed or reply was vague. The petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to show cause notice, however, without considering contents of it, only on basis of inquiry report, petitioner was dismissed from service.

9. Learned counsel also submits that in present case, decision making process was defective and impugned order is liable to be interfered and since petitioner has already crossed age of superannuation and there is no procedure to continue disciplinary proceedings after retirement, this Court may not remand matter to continue disciplinary proceedings from the stage where it became defective.

10. Per contra, Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for respondents submits that order was passed on basis of evidence documentary available. Petitioner has committed financial embezzlement along with other employee of bank and has caused financial loss to bank. Principles of natural justice were followed by inquiry officer as well as by Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has filed a very vague reply and since charges were based on documents and financial irregularities remained unexplained, therefore, charges were held to be proved and it is well settled that in case of financial embezzlement, a major penalty of dismissal from service can be passed.

11. I have carefully perused the inquiry report dated 27.01.2005 wherein after mentioning vague reply submitted by petitioner, all charges were held to be proved as petitioner was failed to submit any reply or evidence. Inquiry Committee has not taken any endeavour to prove the charges on basis of documents and independent material such as statements. For reference, relevant part of inquiry report is mentioned below :- षकयण हह वरन धणरण 1 शश करणण शशकर पणणडडय कक पडषषत आरकपपत मम कक ल 5 “ आरकप सशगषठत षकए षवरद ककई ठकस तथयणतमक वसतकसससषत कण उलडख शश गयड हड। उन आरकपप कड मम सभश आरकपप कक असतय भमक पणणडडय नड नहश मनगढत व बडबकषनयणद बतणयण हह। उनकड दणरण इस समबध मम ककई सणकय पसतकत न करनण उनहड आरकपप सड दकष मकक नहश करतण हह। इसश पकणर धणरण 2 एवश धणरण 3 मम शश पणणडडय दणरण सणकय षवहशन तकर पसतकत षकयड गयड हह जक सणकय न हकनड कड कणरण महणतवहशन हह धणरण 4 जजन कणगजणतप कड मणशग कड मड शश पणणडडय दणरण समबनध मम उलडख षकयण हह उनहड कणयणरलय पतणशक 9291 षदनणशक 17-1-05 दणरण उनहड पडषषत षकयण जण चककण हह। अतत कणयणरलय पतणशक 4995/पशण0/2004-05 षद० 20-9-04 दणरण पडषषत आरकप पत कड पतयकतर मम उनकड दणरण पडषषत षद० 14-1-05 कड जबणब कड आधणर पर सभश आरकप यसणवत जसद पणयड जणतड हह। ”

12. Court also takes note that petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed reply to show cause notice, however, Disciplinary Authority only on basis of inquiry report has held that charges were proved and punishment of dismissal from service was passed. Relevant part of said order dated 18.08.2008 is mentioned hereinafter :- “ यतत सषचव उ०प० सहकणरश सशससणगत सडवणमणडल लखनऊ नड अपनड अनडकप पतप कड मणधयम सड शश पणणडडय कक धनरणषश जमण करनड हडतक ममकण षदयण गयण तसण शश पणणडडय दणरण भश धन जमण करनड कड आशणसन षदयण गयण परनतक शश पणणडडय दणरण बबक कड अपहररत धनरणषश कक जमण नहश षकयण गयण हह। षवषनयमणवलश 1975 कड पतणशक 1139/मश0/12-479/ यतत सषचव उ०प० सहकणरश सशससणगत सडवणमणडल लखनऊ नड बबक दणरण पडषषत ससचनणओश/ अषभलडखप कड आधणर पर शश करणणशशकर पणणडडय वगर-3 कक बबक कक सडवण सड पदचयकत (षडसषमस) षकयड जणनड हडतक बबक दणरण पसतणषवत दणड पर समयक षवचणरकपरणनत उ०प० सहकणरश सषमषत कमरचणरश कड अनतगरत अपनश सहमषत सडवण अनक० कर०/08-09 षदनणशक कणयणरलय अगसत 07-2008 दणरण पदणन कर दश हह। और यतत उपरकक समग सससषत एशव सषचव उ०प० सहकणरश सशससणगत सडवणमणडल लखनऊ कड उपरकक सहमषत पत सड पशणसक महकदय कक अवगत करणयण गयण जजस पर सकम अजधकणरश / पशणसक महकदय दणरण शश करणणशशकर पणणडडय कमरचणरश वगर-3 कक बबक कक सडवण सड सडवणचयकत करनड हडतक अपनश सहमषत षदनणशक 18-08-08 षवषनयम सश0 87 कक पदणन कर दश हब। अतत सकम अजधकणरश/ पशणसक महकदय कक अनकमषत षदनणशक 18-08-08 कड अनकपणलन कम मम शश करणणशशकर पणणडडय कमरचणरश वगर-3 कक ततकणल पभणव सड बबक कक सडवण सड सडवणचचकत (षडसषमस) षकयण जणतण हह। ”

13. As referred above, Disciplinary Authority has not even mentioned contents of reply submitted to show cause notice nor there was any consideration of it.

14. At this stage, Court also takes note of few paragraphs of a judgment of Supreme Court in The State of Rajasthan and others vs. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 INSC 592 : 2024 SCC Online SC 1908 wherein following paragraphs of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 were relied upon. For reference, relevant paragraph is quoted below :- “23. The scope of examination and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Constitution’) in a case of the present nature, is no longer res integra. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, a 3-Judge Bench stated: ‘7. … The High Court is not constituted in a Article 226 of proceeding the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant : it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.’ (emphasis supplied)”

15. In aforesaid circumstances, Court can interfere in disciplinary proceedings either it was a case of no evidence or conclusions were arbitrary and capricious and that no reasonable person can arrive at that conclusion.

16. Contents of inquiry report clearly demonstrates that no material was examined in support of all charges as well as no statement was recorded to prove charges, therefore, conclusion that all charges were proved is perverse as well as Appellate Authority has also not considered above aspects. Therefore, Court is of considered opinion that it is a case of no evidence.

17. Court also takes note that respondents have not brought on record any provision that in given circumstances, inquiry can be continued after retirement of delinquent and admittedly petitioner has already crossed age of superannuation, therefore, matter cannot be remitted back to commence inquiry at the stage where there was procedural lapse.

18. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 18.08.2008, 23.10.2015 and 31.05.2017 are set aside and its legal consequence shall follow.

19. Writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 N. Sinha NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad