High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Petitioner, a Divyang (Visually), after crossing all hurdles and after participating in open selection, was appointed as a Bank Officer in Bank of Baroda on 06.11.2009 at a Branch in District Kanpur Nagar.

2. Petitioner was promoted on Scale-II on 21.06.2013. On 19.06.2014 he was put under suspension and served with a “Memorandum”, “Articles of Charge” and “Statement of Allegations” dated 28.04.2015 under relevant regulations of Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated to impose major penalty.

3. The allegations were mainly with regard to irregularities in number of Car loan accounts, irregularities committed in number of bank accounts and the process undertaken for the purpose of different loans given to different customers. Irregularities were also pointed out in cash credit and different loan accounts, two wheeler loan accounts etc.

4. Petitioner has not filed all relevant papers, however, from perusal of counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent-Bank, it is clearly evident that departmental inquiry was attended by petitioner regularly and on his demand the relevant papers in connection with number of irregularities were provided. Petitioner was also confronted with statements of witnesses examined by Bank to which an opportunity was granted to him to cross- examine as well as he was allowed to produce defence witnesses, therefore, an argument raised on behalf of petitioner-in-person, that due procedure was not followed, is absolutely contrary to record. Principles of natural justice 2 were completely followed; all the papers related to number of allegations were provided; full opportunity was granted for cross-examination and to produce his witness and petitioner-in-person, is not able to show any defect in the process of departmental inquiry, as provided under relevant regulations.

5. On basis of inquiry a punishment order dated 14.03.2016 was passed whereby petitioner-in-person, was awarded major penalty on proved charges and awarded following punishment: “Reduction to a lower Grade i.e. from MMG/S-II to JMG/S-I and be placed at the Basic pay of Rs. 23,700/- scale in JMG/S-I.”

6. Petitioner-in-person, has filed an appeal against aforesaid order, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2017 as no substantive grounds were available to interfere with order of punishment. A review application filed against order dated 08.06.2017 was also rejected by a reasoned order dated 05.10.2017.

7. Petitioner-in-person, has argued at length and on the request of Court,

Sri Mrityunjay Pandey, Advocate has also assisted the Court.

8. Sri Ashok Trivedi, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of Respondent-Bank.

9. Petitioner-in-person, has vehemently submitted that he is a victim and with mala fide intentions an inquiry was initiated and punishment order was passed, despite no irregularity was committed by him. He has repeatedly requested respondents not to appoint him as a Bank Manager, treating his physical position and he may be given some other responsibility, however, with mala fide intentions and in order to harass him, concerned respondent has posted him as a Bank Manager at two Branches. He has cooperated in inquiry and despite repeated requests to provide all relevant papers, the same were not provided, though the Court has already observed in earlier paragraphs that said submission is contrary to record. 3

10. Petitioner-in-person, has also referred relevant part of punishment order that admittedly despite alleged irregularities, no financial loss was caused to Bank as well as that there was no element of personal gain, still petitioner was awarded major penalty which is shockingly disproportionate. Petitioner-in-person, has vehemently, refers following paragraphs of punishment order: “Thus, the various acts of omission and commission observed against the CSO are serious in nature, which in retrospect, could have avoided the perpetration of frauds and wrong selection of borrowers. I, the undersigned as Disciplinary Authority is therefore of the opinion that the acts of CSO are not justifiable and should attract severe penalty especially in respect of misuse and abuse of his official position by manipulating irregular and unauthorized transactions in the account of Mr. Abdul Rauf. This cannot be just seen as an omission/negligence but infact unauthorized entries made show they were intentional. In a financial institution like a bank if a responsible Officer commits such intentional manipulation of accounts/ transactions the acts would generally make him seen as incapable/of being continued in the Bank service and would attract maximum punishment. However, looking to the fact that such entries neither caused ultimately any loss to the bank and nor there is any element of personal gains being derived along with the fact that the CSO is a handicapped person (visually) I am willing to give him another chance under the reformatory approach by proposing the penalty short of maximum punishment.”

11. Sri Mrityunjay Pandey, Advocate has also assisted the Court that once a finding is returned that there was no financial loss to Bank and there was no personal gain to petitioner as well as that petitioner has earlier requested not to post him as Bank Manager looking to his physical position, the Court may take a lenient view and atleast interfere with major penalty.

12. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent-Bank, submits that petitioner-in-person, has indulged himself in number of irregularities; he was not careful to scrutinize the documents before sanctioning loans; during inquiry a detailed procedure was followed; petitioner-in-person, was granted complete opportunity; and, there is no error in decision making process. 4 Learned Advocate further submits that a sympathetic view has already been taken and instead of awarding punishment of dismissal, petitioner was awarded a lesser punishment. He further submits that in financial institutions, the irregularities committed by petitioner, are considered to be a serious misconduct and it is not necessary that it led to financial loss, rather the Bank employees have to remain cautious to stop the likelihood of any financial loss.

13. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

14. It is well settled that in normal circumstances, Courts are slow in causing interference in the orders passed in departmental proceedings. For reference relevant part of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 is mentioned hereinafter: “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 proceeding under Article 226 of 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 5 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.’

Sri Mrityunjay Pandey, Advocate has also assisted the Court.

8. Sri Ashok Trivedi, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of Respondent-Bank.

9. Petitioner-in-person, has vehemently submitted that he is a victim and with mala fide intentions an inquiry was initiated and punishment order was passed, despite no irregularity was committed by him. He has repeatedly requested respondents not to appoint him as a Bank Manager, treating his physical position and he may be given some other responsibility, however, with mala fide intentions and in order to harass him, concerned respondent has posted him as a Bank Manager at two Branches. He has cooperated in inquiry and despite repeated requests to provide all relevant papers, the same were not provided, though the Court has already observed in earlier paragraphs that said submission is contrary to record. 3

10. Petitioner-in-person, has also referred relevant part of punishment order that admittedly despite alleged irregularities, no financial loss was caused to Bank as well as that there was no element of personal gain, still petitioner was awarded major penalty which is shockingly disproportionate. Petitioner-in-person, has vehemently, refers following paragraphs of punishment order: “Thus, the various acts of omission and commission observed against the CSO are serious in nature, which in retrospect, could have avoided the perpetration of frauds and wrong selection of borrowers. I, the undersigned as Disciplinary Authority is therefore of the opinion that the acts of CSO are not justifiable and should attract severe penalty especially in respect of misuse and abuse of his official position by manipulating irregular and unauthorized transactions in the account of Mr. Abdul Rauf. This cannot be just seen as an omission/negligence but infact unauthorized entries made show they were intentional. In a financial institution like a bank if a responsible Officer commits such intentional manipulation of accounts/ transactions the acts would generally make him seen as incapable/of being continued in the Bank service and would attract maximum punishment. However, looking to the fact that such entries neither caused ultimately any loss to the bank and nor there is any element of personal gains being derived along with the fact that the CSO is a handicapped person (visually) I am willing to give him another chance under the reformatory approach by proposing the penalty short of maximum punishment.”

11. Sri Mrityunjay Pandey, Advocate has also assisted the Court that once a finding is returned that there was no financial loss to Bank and there was no personal gain to petitioner as well as that petitioner has earlier requested not to post him as Bank Manager looking to his physical position, the Court may take a lenient view and atleast interfere with major penalty.

12. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent-Bank, submits that petitioner-in-person, has indulged himself in number of irregularities; he was not careful to scrutinize the documents before sanctioning loans; during inquiry a detailed procedure was followed; petitioner-in-person, was granted complete opportunity; and, there is no error in decision making process. 4 Learned Advocate further submits that a sympathetic view has already been taken and instead of awarding punishment of dismissal, petitioner was awarded a lesser punishment. He further submits that in financial institutions, the irregularities committed by petitioner, are considered to be a serious misconduct and it is not necessary that it led to financial loss, rather the Bank employees have to remain cautious to stop the likelihood of any financial loss.

13. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

14. It is well settled that in normal circumstances, Courts are slow in causing interference in the orders passed in departmental proceedings. For reference relevant part of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 is mentioned hereinafter: “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 proceeding under Article 226 of 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 5 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.’