Nar Bahadur Thapa … v. State Bank of India and 2 others

Judgment

1. Petitioner while working as Senior Assistant was faced a disciplinary proceedings for a very serious charge of embezzlement of ₹ 10,00,000/-. On 06.12.2023, petitioner along with Branch Manager Amit Shukla went to Automated Deposit Cum Withdrawal Machine (for short “ADWM”) which is outside Delapeer Branch of SBI, Bareilly.

2. Currency was replenished and according to petitioner, fresh currency of ظ✿ 20,00,000/- was loaded in said machine in presence of said Branch Manager being Joint Custodian. The petitioner was medical leave from 02.01.2024 to 02.06.2024. During aforesaid period, on 10.01.2024, Branch Manager along 2 WRIA No. 11470/2025 with Joint Custodian Veeresh evacuated and replenished ظ✿ 10,00,000/- in 500/- denomination notes and took out the ظ✿ currency machine and when it was counted, there was a shortage ظ✿ of 10,00,000/-.

3. In aforesaid circumstances, a disciplinary proceedings were

initiated against the petitioner and an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and also against Branch Manager Amit Shukla on

20.02.2024.

4. The Disciplinary proceedings were initiated only against petitioner on 3 charges vide charge sheet dated 13.06.2024 and for reference, charges are quoted below :- “ अभि(cid:3)यो⶯ᮽ ्ቅमांक 1: क ाय$ हैसिसयत ड᭵ኑलापीኜᮜ शाखा ǝǴ18412) क ᭵ኑ सह- क ኆⓠ क ኜᮜत᭵ኑ म䀐䃑 क ो ड᭵ኑलापीኜᮜ शाखा ǝǴ18412) सिजसक ᭵ኑ धोखाधड़ी ǝǴfraud) क ኆⓠ (cid:3)ावना बदनीयती ǝǴmala-fid) ) एवं ⶯ᮽबन/ अभि(cid:3)ኜᮜ्ቌक joint स᭵ኑ आपन᭵ኑ, हुए, दिदनांक custodian) 06.12.2023 ऐडीडब्ल्यूएम मशीन म䀐䃑 जानबूझक ኜᮜ क म ኜᮜाभिश जमा क ኆⓠ, परिኜᮜणामस्वरूप ⶯ᮽ⸏䀊ⓧⷫ आपन᭵ኑ उ्ሹ एडीडब्ल्यूएम मशीन म䀐䃑 नक दी क ኆⓠ क मी पा⸏䀊 लाख क ᭵ኑ एडीडब्ल्यूएम मशीन स᭵ኑ मूल्य व⶯ᮽ$ क ᭵ኑ रु 20.00 नो尭敿 दिनक ाल᭵ኑ दिक ए जान᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑ पኜᮜतु आपन᭵ኑ मशीन म䀐䃑 रु. 20.00 लाख मशीन म䀐䃑 जमा लाख ही (cid:3)ኜᮜाⓧⷫ श᭵ኑቧॡ रु.10.00 लाख क ᭵ኑ स्थान पኜᮜ क ᭵ኑ वल रु.10.00 लाख क ኆⓠ ኜᮜाभिश न तो मशीन म䀐䃑 फኆⓠड क ኆⓠ ⶯ᮽ⸏䀊 थी औኜᮜ न ही शाखा क ᭵ኑ नक द बैल䀐䃑स म䀐䃑 जमा क ኆⓠ ⶯ᮽ⸏䀊 थीⓧⷫ आपक ा उपኜᮜो्ሹ क ु क ृ त्य सीसी尭敿ीवी ǝǴCCT)v) दिवभि(cid:3)屃䧛 मूल्य व⶯ᮽ6 क ᭵ኑ रु. 20.00 सिजनक ᭵ኑ स्थान पኜᮜ रु.500/- क ኆⓠ म䀐䃑 दज$ हैⓧⷫ अभि(cid:3)यो⶯ᮽ ्ቅमांक 2: शाखा क ᭵ኑ अभि(cid:3)ኜᮜ्ቌक ǝǴ18412) क ኆⓠ हैसिसयत स᭵ኑ आपन᭵ኑ सह- ǝǴjoint ड᭵ኑ्቎ापौኜᮜ दिदनांक 30.12.2023 क ो custodian) शाखा क ᭵ኑ एडीडब्ल्यूएम क ा नक दी सत्यापन दिक या पኜᮜंतु सीसी尭敿ीवी फु 尭敿᭵ኑज क ᭵ኑ अनुसाኜᮜ दिदनांक 30.12.2023 क ो एडीडब्ल्यूएम क ो खोता ही नहीं ⶯ᮽया थाⓧⷫ अस्तु, दिमलान (cid:3)ी नहीं हुआ थाⓧⷫ अतएव, दिक या ⶯ᮽया उपኜᮜो्ሹ 30.12.2023 क ा एडीडब्ल्यूएम क ा नक दी सत्यापन असत्य एवं फजD था एवं आपक ᭵ኑ लाख क ᭵ኑ ्ቛाኜᮜा क ु क ृ त्य क ो दिदनांक 06.12.2023 भिEपान᭵ኑ क ा ्ቚयास थाⓧⷫ क ो ⶯ᮽबन दिक ए ⶯ᮽए रु.10.00 (cid:3)ौतितक नक दी क ा वुक बैल䀐䃑स स᭵ኑ आपक ᭵ኑ ्ቛाኜᮜा अभि(cid:3)यो⶯ᮽ ्ቅमांक 3: आपक ᭵ኑ उपኜᮜो्ሹ क ृ त्य⹋ⷬ स᭵ኑ बैंक क ो Rs. 10,00,000/- क ኆⓠ आቕኌथक हादिन हु⸏䀊 है, बैंक क ኆⓠ Eदिव (cid:3)ी धूदिमल हु⸏䀊 हैⓧⷫ साथ ही, 3 WRIA No. 11470/2025 सिस擁厅 होन᭵ኑ पኜᮜ उपኜᮜो्ሹ आኜᮜोप, M) morandum of S) ttl) m) दिदनांक 10.04.2002 क ᭵ኑ पैኜᮜा 5ǝǴ1) दिदनांक 07.04.2016 क ᭵ኑ अंत⶯ᮽ$त, ͯͮGross Misconductͯͮ ǝǴघोኜᮜ क दाचाኜᮜ) लिलए उपኜᮜो्ሹ समझौत⹋ⷬ क ᭵ኑ पैኜᮜा 6 क ኆⓠ ्ቦ᭵ኑणी म䀐䃑 मान᭵ኑ जाएँ⶯ᮽ᭵ኑ औኜᮜ सिजनक ᭵ኑ क ᭵ኑ अंत⶯ᮽ$त आपक ो दंतिडत दिक या जा सक ता हैⓧⷫ एव बैंक स्तኜᮜ समझौता ”

5. Petitioner has submitted his reply and denied all allegations. During disciplinary proceedings, 3 witnesses viz. PW-1 Amit Shukla, PW-2 Rahul Gangwar and PW-3 Sompal Gangwar. Statement and their examination are also annexed along with this writ petition. Inquiry Officer has asked various questions to each witness in presence of petitioner, however, petitioner has refused to ask any question i.e. he has opted not to cross examine witnesses. Relevant questions and answers of three witnesses are quoted below :- “PW-1 (Amit Shukla) क्या

12. पኜᮜ ADWM ⶯ᮽ⸏䀊 थीⓧⷫ दिवኜᮜ᭵ኑश ǝǴ दिद. 10.01.2024 म䀐䃑 क ै श Evacuation लिलए ्ቦी क ᭵ኑ नए क ै श इंचाज$) क ᭵ኑ आन᭵ኑ दिवኜᮜ᭵ኑश क ኆⓠ ID बनवा⸏䀊 ्ቦी ्ቛाኜᮜा बनवा⸏䀊 ID हाँ RBO 02.01.2024 क ኆⓠ मኜᮜम्मत क ᭵ኑ क ै स᭵ኑ尭敿 दिनक ाल᭵ኑ ⶯ᮽय᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑ, मኜᮜम्मत क ᭵ኑ बाद उनक ो यथावत ATM क ो खोला नहीं ⶯ᮽया थाⓧⷫ यह पूኜᮜी घ尭敿ना CCT)v ⶯ᮽ⸏䀊 थी, बहादुኜᮜ थापा स᭵ኑ अवक ाश पኜᮜ थ᭵ኑⓧⷫ 03.01.2024 क ो ATM स᭵ኑन्सኜᮜ ल᭵ኑक ኜᮜ ATM क ᭵ኑ स(cid:3)ी लिलए ्ቦी थापा स᭵ኑ फोन पኜᮜ OTC उनक ो वाल्尭敿 म䀐䃑 सुኜᮜति्ቌत ኜᮜखा ⶯ᮽया था तथा दिफኜᮜ स᭵ኑ ኜᮜखा ⶯ᮽया थाⓧⷫ क ै स᭵ኑ尭敿ो म䀐䃑 सुኜᮜति्ቌत हैⓧⷫ ्ቦीनኜᮜ म䀐䃑

13. दिद. 10.01.2024 क ो ्ቦी क ै श दिमलान पኜᮜ दिक तनी ኜᮜोक ड़ शा尭敿$ दिवኜᮜ᭵ኑश औኜᮜ आप ्ቛाኜᮜा ADWM म䀐䃑 दिमलीⓧⷫ Rs. 10.00 लाख शा尭敿$ दिमली थीⓧⷫ क्या दिद. 10.01.2024 क ो ADWM लाख ኜᮜोक ड़ शा尭敿$ दिमलन᭵ኑ आप न᭵ኑ क ं 尭敿्रोलኜᮜ क ो म䀐䃑 क ै श दिमलान पኜᮜ Rs दिक या रिኜᮜपो尭敿$

14. 10.00 थाⓧⷫ हाँ, 10.01.2024 चैनल मैन᭵ኑजኜᮜ आय᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑ, 10.01.2024 इसक ो पኜᮜ 12.01.2024 क ो Email दिक या ⶯ᮽया थाⓧⷫ क ो 尭敿᭵ኑलीफोन पኜᮜ दिक या थाⓧⷫ 10.01.2024 क ो औኜᮜ 11.01.2024 क ो रिኜᮜक ान्साइल नहीं होन᭵ኑ ्ቛाኜᮜा क ं 尭敿्रोिሴल⶯ᮽ आदिफस क ो सूतिचत रिኜᮜक ान्साइल क ኜᮜन᭵ኑ क ा ्ቚयास दिक या ⶯ᮽया ********* PW-2 (Rahul Gangwar) 4 WRIA No. 11470/2025

4. क्या न᭵ኑ ኜᮜोक ड़ क ा दिद. 22.12.2023 क ो ADWM म䀐䃑 क ै श व᭵ኑኜᮜीदिफक ᭵ኑ शन म䀐䃑 आप दिमलान दिफसिजक ल क ै श क ाउं尭敿 क ኜᮜक ᭵ኑ दिक या थाⓧⷫ दिफसिजक ल क ै श क ाउन्尭敿 क ኜᮜक ᭵ኑ नहीं, साኜᮜ᭵ኑ क ै श᭵ኑ尭敿 मैन᭵ኑ नहीं द᭵ኑखा क ᭵ኑ वल दिमभि्ቦत नो尭敿 वाला क ै स᭵ኑ尭敿 द᭵ኑखा थाⓧⷫ दिक या था ADWM न᭵ኑ दिमलान नहीं

5. दिद. 22.12.2023 क ो ADWM ADWM ᭵ኑ खोल क ኜᮜ दिक सन᭵ኑ क ा क ै श 尭敿्र दिदखाया थाⓧⷫ म䀐䃑 क ै श व᭵ኑኜᮜीदिफश᭵ኑन म䀐䃑 आप क ो क ै स᭵ኑ尭敿 क ो ्ቦी नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा जी न᭵ኑ खोल क ኜᮜ दिदखाया था मैन᭵ኑ क ै स क ाउन्尭敿 नहीं दिक या थाⓧⷫ दिदन मैन᭵ኑ क ै श व᭵ኑኜᮜीदिफक ᭵ኑ शन रिኜᮜपो尭敿$ तैयाኜᮜ क ኜᮜ ज्वाइन्尭敿 क स्尭敿ोतिडयन उसी स᭵ኑ हस्ता्ቌኜᮜ क ኜᮜता क ኜᮜ RBO क ो सबदिम尭敿 दिक या थाⓧⷫ ्ቚस्तुतक ता$ अतिधक ाኜᮜी ्ቛाኜᮜा ्ቚ⻁䀺 पूण$ हुआⓧⷫ बचाव प्ቌ – हम䀐䃑 क ो⸏䀊 ्ቚ⻁䀺 नहीं पूEना हैⓧⷫ ⶯ᮽवाह क ा बयान पूण$ हुआⓧⷫ ************** PW-3 (Sompal Gangwar) क्या पहल᭵ኑ स᭵ኑ ADWM

12. म䀐䃑 मौजूद क ै श क ो ्ቦी नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा न᭵ኑ स्वम बै⶯ᮽ (cid:3)ኜᮜा औኜᮜ आप स᭵ኑ क ै श (cid:3)ኜᮜा बै⶯ᮽ अपन᭵ኑ तथा ्ቦी अदिमत शु्ቇा क ᭵ኑ साथ साथ ADWM स᭵ኑ ल᭵ኑक ኜᮜ ्ቜांच म䀐䃑 ल᭵ኑ चलन᭵ኑ क ो क हा थाⓧⷫ ्ቦी नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा न᭵ኑ ADWM हाँ, क ो मौजूद क ै श स्वयं बै⶯ᮽ म䀐䃑 (cid:3)ኜᮜ᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑⓧⷫ क ै श (cid:3)ኜᮜा बै⶯ᮽ म䀐䃑 औኜᮜ अदिमत शु्ቇा क ᭵ኑ साथ ्ቜांच म䀐䃑 ल᭵ኑ आयाⓧⷫ नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा ADWM दिनक ालक ኜᮜ दिफኜᮜ शाखा म䀐䃑 आय᭵ኑⓧⷫ म䀐䃑 पचD दिद. 06.12.2023 क ो ADWM क्या

13. क ै श स᭵ኑ (cid:3)ኜᮜा बै⶯ᮽ आप न᭵ኑ ADWM थापा क ो सुपुद$ क ኜᮜ दिदय᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑⓧⷫ म䀐䃑 पहल᭵ኑ स᭵ኑ मौजूद समस्त स᭵ኑ ्ቜांच म䀐䃑 आन᭵ኑ पኜᮜ ्ቦी नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ हाँ मैन᭵ኑ क ै श स᭵ኑ (cid:3)ኜᮜा बै⶯ᮽ नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा क ो सुपुद$ क ኜᮜ दिदय᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑⓧⷫ ्ቚस्तुत क ता$ अतिधक ाኜᮜी ्ቛाኜᮜा ्ቚ⻁䀺 पूण$ हुआⓧⷫ बचाव प्ቌ- हम䀐䃑 क ो⸏䀊 ्ቚ⻁䀺 नहीं पूEना हैⓧⷫ ”

6. It is not disputed that entire occurrence was captured in CCTV footage and was produced during inquiry and relevant description of 06.12.2023 between 15:06 to 15:49 Hours are mentioned in inquiry report are quoted below :- 1

१५.०६. २१ बज᭵ኑ शाखा ्ቚबंधक ), ( अदिमत शु्ቇा ⸏䀊चाज$) क ᭵ኑ साथ सोमपाल ⶯ᮽं⶯ᮽवाኜᮜ ( क ै श (cid:3)ኜᮜा हुआ बै⶯ᮽ ल᭵ኑक ኜᮜ ए 尭敿ी एम म䀐䃑 आए. नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा संद᭵ኑश वाहक ) (क ै श शाखा स᭵ኑ 2

१५.०८. ४६ बज᭵ኑ थापा न᭵ኑ ए 尭敿ी एम क ा हुड उठाया. 5 WRIA No. 11470/2025 सोमपाल न᭵ኑ शाखा स᭵ኑ लाय᭵ኑ ⶯ᮽय᭵ኑ बै⶯ᮽ स᭵ኑ दिनक ाल क ኜᮜ ५०० क ኆⓠ २० ⶯ᮽतिbयां क ु ल १० लाख रुपय᭵ኑ ए 尭敿ी एम क ᭵ኑ ऊपኜᮜ ኜᮜखा. बै⶯ᮽ खाली हो ⶯ᮽया. ए 尭敿ी एम क ᭵ኑ क ै स᭵ኑ्ሾस स᭵ኑ साኜᮜा क ै श दिनक ाल क ኜᮜ थापा न᭵ኑ खाली बै⶯ᮽ म䀐䃑 ኜᮜखा. ए 尭敿ी एम क ᭵ኑ ऊपኜᮜ ኜᮜख᭵ኑ ⶯ᮽय᭵ኑ १०. थापा न᭵ኑ ए 尭敿ी एम क ᭵ኑ क ै स᭵ኑ्ሾस म䀐䃑 (cid:3)ኜᮜ दिदया ०० लाख रूपय᭵ኑ क ो बै⶯ᮽ म䀐䃑 ኜᮜखा ए 尭敿ी एम स᭵ኑ सोमपाल ⶯ᮽं⶯ᮽवाኜᮜ शाखा म䀐䃑 ल᭵ኑ जान᭵ኑ क ᭵ኑ दिनक ाला ⶯ᮽया साኜᮜा क ै श लिलय᭵ኑ उठाय᭵ኑ अदिमत औኜᮜ थापा न᭵ኑ ए 尭敿ी एम क ा वाल्尭敿 औኜᮜ हुड बंद दिक या अदिमत शु्ቇा ए 尭敿ी एम स᭵ኑ चल᭵ኑ ⶯ᮽय᭵ኑ, ए 尭敿ी एम म䀐䃑 ही थ᭵ኑ. सोमपाल तथा थापा 3

१५.१६. १८ बज᭵ኑ

१५.१७. ३० बज᭵ኑ

१५.१९. १५ बज᭵ኑ

१५.२१. ५३ बज᭵ኑ

१५.२२. ४२ बज᭵ኑ

१५.३०. ५५ बज᭵ኑ 4 5 6 7 8 9

१५.४६. ०० बज᭵ኑ थापा न᭵ኑ ए 尭敿ी एम स᭵ኑ पचD दि्ቚन्尭敿 क ኆⓠ. 10 १५.४८. २२ बज᭵ኑ थापा औኜᮜ सोमपाल एक साथ ए 尭敿ी एम स᭵ኑ क ै श (cid:3)ኜᮜ᭵ኑ बै⶯ᮽ क ᭵ኑ साथ दिनक ल᭵ኑ. 11 १५.४९. ०० बज᭵ኑ ए०尭敿ी०एम० म䀐䃑 ्ቇाहक आन᭵ኑ ल⶯ᮽ᭵ኑ

7. Each witness has submitted that petitioner has put only ظ✿ 10,00,000/- on ADWM which was filled at relevant place, therefore, allegations that petitioner has not deposited ظ✿ 10,00,000/- was evident from CCTV footage and that admittedly, petitioner has not cross examined any witness during inquiry.

8. S/Sri K.R. Singh and Kunal Singh, learned advocates for petitioner have submitted that money was taken from ADWM on

11.01.2024 when the petitioner was on medical leave and currency remained with other persons for substantial period and there is no explanation with the said employee, therefore, subsequent counting of money where a shortfall of 10,00,000/- ظ✿ was shown could not be considered to be a genuine counting.

9. Learned advocates for petitioner have referred a letter dated

13.02.2024 that shortfall was reported in evening so there was 6 WRIA No. 11470/2025 enough time for other employees, who were Joint Custodian of money, to embezzle the amount.

10. Per contra, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent – Bank has submitted that once it is clearly evident in CCTV footage that petitioner has only deposited 10,00,000/- ظ✿ instead of 20,00,000/-. He is not in a position to shift the ظ✿ burden of shortfall and CCTV footage is not denied.

11. Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon judgments of Supreme Court in Bank of India and another vs. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762, State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, State of Madras vs. G. Sundaram, AIR 1965 SC 1103, Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank and others, (2003) 3 SCC 583 and B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749.

12. In rejoinder, learned advocates for petitioner have submitted that in similar nature of charges, one Amit Kapoor, Chief Associate was awarded lessor punishment i.e. discharge from services with superannuation benefits whereas petitioner was awarded with maximum punishment of removal without notice.

13. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

14. It is not a case of petitioner that on 06.12.2023, petitioner has not filled the tray of ADWM. It is also not a case of petitioner that amount to be put in tray was 20,00,000/- and ظ✿ that he was custodian of said amount. It is also not a case of petitioner that before 10.01.2024, tray was taken out from said machine for refill. The disciplinary inquiry was conducted in due process. The petitioner was granted opportunity to cross-examine 7 WRIA No. 11470/2025 3 witnesses but as per the records, he has refused to cross- examine.

15. CCTV footage of relevant date and time shows that petitioner has put only 10,00,000/- on ADWM and filled only ظ✿ said currency in tray and said version is also corroborated from statement of witnesses. Petitioner has not come up with any explanation that he has filled 20,00,000/- on said date instead ظ✿ of 10,00,000/-. The petitioner is not able to deny veracity of ظ✿ CCTV recordings.

16. In aforesaid circumstances, argument of learned advocates for petitioner that the remaining money was taken out from tray when the petitioner was on medical leave and there was a possibility that the then Custodian has taken 10,00,000/- has ظ✿ no force since earlier referred CCTV footage is of 06.12.2023 i.e. earlier point of time which shows that petitioner has deposited only 10,00,000/- instead of 20,00,000/-, therefore, petitioner ظ✿ ظ✿ has to firstly explain that whether he has deposited 20,00,000/- ظ✿ or not and in the cross examination, he has not asked any question to witnesses.

17. In aforesaid circumstances, Court takes note of judgment of Supreme Court in Bhupendra Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 113 wherein principle of causing interference in disciplinary proceedings was reiterated in following manner :- “33. Certain generic principles governing interference with orders of punishment that are passed following inquiry proceedings have evolved over a period of time. Law is well settled that an administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not ordinarily subject to correction in judicial review 8 WRIA No. 11470/2025 because the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. If there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the high court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, should on consideration of the materials on record, the court be satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, or that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted contrary to statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, or that the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or that the conclusion of is ex facie arbitrary or capricious, so much so that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion, or there is any other ground very similar to the above, the high court may in the exercise of its discretion interfere to set things right. After all, public servants to whom Article 311 of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated. disciplinary authority

34. It would further be of immense profit, at this stage, to consider a specific principle which is tailored to the particular situation and could clinch the issue. The Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking through Hon'ble P.B. Gajendragadkar, J., in Union of India v. H.C. Goel8 laid down a specific test which could be applied if a contention were raised that the conclusion is based on no evidence. Relevant passages from the said decision evincing one of the two questions arising for decision and the answer thereto, read as follows: “1. Two short questions of law arise for our decision in the present appeal. The first question is … ; and the other question is whether the High Court in dealing with a writ petition filed by a Government Officer who has been dismissed from Government service is entitled to hold that the conclusion reached by the 9 WRIA No. 11470/2025 Government in regard to his misconduct if (sic, is) not supported by any evidence at all. As our judgment will show, we are inclined to answer both the questions in the affirmative. Thus, the appellant, the Union of India, succeeds on the first point, but fails on the second. …

20. … It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is not right when he contends that in the circumstances of this case, the conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence whatever. It is a conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the face of the record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. In dealing with writ petitions filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Article 311(2), the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. It is true that the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order; nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence. …

23. … In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. 10 WRIA No. 11470/2025 In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence illegally (sic, legally) the impugned conclusion follows or not. …

26. … Though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the appellant to root out corruption from public service, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquires held under the statutory rules. …” (emphasis supplied) decision

35. It also needs to be emphasised that although the traditional concept of natural justice comprises of the two rules that prohibit anyone from being condemned unheard and anyone from being a judge of his own cause, jurisprudence on natural justice principles have seen a distinct shift ever in Maneka Gandhi v. India9 constitutionalised principles of natural justice, as held in Madhayamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India10. Drawing inspiration from such authorities, it would be apt to observe that in relation to disciplinary proceedings, subject to just exceptions, natural justice would envisage observance of procedural fairness before holding a public servant guilty of misconduct and imposing a punishment on him for such misconduct. While it is true that principles of natural justice supplement, and not supplant, the law, such principles have been declared by this Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14. Validity of any 11 WRIA No. 11470/2025 disciplinary action, whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable. To test whether interference is warranted, this Court has laid down that the scrutiny ought to be confined to finding out whether the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted fairly; if not, an inference can be drawn that this has caused prejudice to the charged employee. Be that as it may, there can be no gainsaying that the consequences of violation of a fair procedure, which principles of natural justice embody, in a given situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis bearing in mind that judicial review is not intended to be an appeal in disguise.”

18. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in impugned order. The charges were completely proved that petitioner has put only ظ✿ 10,00,000/- in tray of ADWM instead of 20,00,000/- and defence put during argument ظ✿ has no factual or legal basis being contrary to CCTV footage which remained uncontroverted.

19. In view of above discussion, present writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed. Dt./- September 24, 2025 N. Sinha [SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.] NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

initiated against the petitioner and an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and also against Branch Manager Amit Shukla on

20.02.2024.

4. The Disciplinary proceedings were initiated only against petitioner on 3 charges vide charge sheet dated 13.06.2024 and for reference, charges are quoted below :- “ अभि(cid:3)यो⶯ᮽ ्ቅमांक 1: क ाय$ हैसिसयत ड᭵ኑलापीኜᮜ शाखा ǝǴ18412) क ᭵ኑ सह- क ኆⓠ क ኜᮜत᭵ኑ म䀐䃑 क ो ड᭵ኑलापीኜᮜ शाखा ǝǴ18412) सिजसक ᭵ኑ धोखाधड़ी ǝǴfraud) क ኆⓠ (cid:3)ावना बदनीयती ǝǴmala-fid) ) एवं ⶯ᮽबन/ अभि(cid:3)ኜᮜ्ቌक joint स᭵ኑ आपन᭵ኑ, हुए, दिदनांक custodian) 06.12.2023 ऐडीडब्ल्यूएम मशीन म䀐䃑 जानबूझक ኜᮜ क म ኜᮜाभिश जमा क ኆⓠ, परिኜᮜणामस्वरूप ⶯ᮽ⸏䀊ⓧⷫ आपन᭵ኑ उ्ሹ एडीडब्ल्यूएम मशीन म䀐䃑 नक दी क ኆⓠ क मी पा⸏䀊 लाख क ᭵ኑ एडीडब्ल्यूएम मशीन स᭵ኑ मूल्य व⶯ᮽ$ क ᭵ኑ रु 20.00 नो尭敿 दिनक ाल᭵ኑ दिक ए जान᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑ पኜᮜतु आपन᭵ኑ मशीन म䀐䃑 रु. 20.00 लाख मशीन म䀐䃑 जमा लाख ही (cid:3)ኜᮜाⓧⷫ श᭵ኑቧॡ रु.10.00 लाख क ᭵ኑ स्थान पኜᮜ क ᭵ኑ वल रु.10.00 लाख क ኆⓠ ኜᮜाभिश न तो मशीन म䀐䃑 फኆⓠड क ኆⓠ ⶯ᮽ⸏䀊 थी औኜᮜ न ही शाखा क ᭵ኑ नक द बैल䀐䃑स म䀐䃑 जमा क ኆⓠ ⶯ᮽ⸏䀊 थीⓧⷫ आपक ा उपኜᮜो्ሹ क ु क ृ त्य सीसी尭敿ीवी ǝǴCCT)v) दिवभि(cid:3)屃䧛 मूल्य व⶯ᮽ6 क ᭵ኑ रु. 20.00 सिजनक ᭵ኑ स्थान पኜᮜ रु.500/- क ኆⓠ म䀐䃑 दज$ हैⓧⷫ अभि(cid:3)यो⶯ᮽ ्ቅमांक 2: शाखा क ᭵ኑ अभि(cid:3)ኜᮜ्ቌक ǝǴ18412) क ኆⓠ हैसिसयत स᭵ኑ आपन᭵ኑ सह- ǝǴjoint ड᭵ኑ्቎ापौኜᮜ दिदनांक 30.12.2023 क ो custodian) शाखा क ᭵ኑ एडीडब्ल्यूएम क ा नक दी सत्यापन दिक या पኜᮜंतु सीसी尭敿ीवी फु 尭敿᭵ኑज क ᭵ኑ अनुसाኜᮜ दिदनांक 30.12.2023 क ो एडीडब्ल्यूएम क ो खोता ही नहीं ⶯ᮽया थाⓧⷫ अस्तु, दिमलान (cid:3)ी नहीं हुआ थाⓧⷫ अतएव, दिक या ⶯ᮽया उपኜᮜो्ሹ 30.12.2023 क ा एडीडब्ल्यूएम क ा नक दी सत्यापन असत्य एवं फजD था एवं आपक ᭵ኑ लाख क ᭵ኑ ्ቛाኜᮜा क ु क ृ त्य क ो दिदनांक 06.12.2023 भिEपान᭵ኑ क ा ्ቚयास थाⓧⷫ क ो ⶯ᮽबन दिक ए ⶯ᮽए रु.10.00 (cid:3)ौतितक नक दी क ा वुक बैल䀐䃑स स᭵ኑ आपक ᭵ኑ ्ቛाኜᮜा अभि(cid:3)यो⶯ᮽ ्ቅमांक 3: आपक ᭵ኑ उपኜᮜो्ሹ क ृ त्य⹋ⷬ स᭵ኑ बैंक क ो Rs. 10,00,000/- क ኆⓠ आቕኌथक हादिन हु⸏䀊 है, बैंक क ኆⓠ Eदिव (cid:3)ी धूदिमल हु⸏䀊 हैⓧⷫ साथ ही, 3 WRIA No. 11470/2025 सिस擁厅 होन᭵ኑ पኜᮜ उपኜᮜो्ሹ आኜᮜोप, M) morandum of S) ttl) m) दिदनांक 10.04.2002 क ᭵ኑ पैኜᮜा 5ǝǴ1) दिदनांक 07.04.2016 क ᭵ኑ अंत⶯ᮽ$त, ͯͮGross Misconductͯͮ ǝǴघोኜᮜ क दाचाኜᮜ) लिलए उपኜᮜो्ሹ समझौत⹋ⷬ क ᭵ኑ पैኜᮜा 6 क ኆⓠ ्ቦ᭵ኑणी म䀐䃑 मान᭵ኑ जाएँ⶯ᮽ᭵ኑ औኜᮜ सिजनक ᭵ኑ क ᭵ኑ अंत⶯ᮽ$त आपक ो दंतिडत दिक या जा सक ता हैⓧⷫ एव बैंक स्तኜᮜ समझौता ”

5. Petitioner has submitted his reply and denied all allegations. During disciplinary proceedings, 3 witnesses viz. PW-1 Amit Shukla, PW-2 Rahul Gangwar and PW-3 Sompal Gangwar. Statement and their examination are also annexed along with this writ petition. Inquiry Officer has asked various questions to each witness in presence of petitioner, however, petitioner has refused to ask any question i.e. he has opted not to cross examine witnesses. Relevant questions and answers of three witnesses are quoted below :- “PW-1 (Amit Shukla) क्या

12. पኜᮜ ADWM ⶯ᮽ⸏䀊 थीⓧⷫ दिवኜᮜ᭵ኑश ǝǴ दिद. 10.01.2024 म䀐䃑 क ै श Evacuation लिलए ्ቦी क ᭵ኑ नए क ै श इंचाज$) क ᭵ኑ आन᭵ኑ दिवኜᮜ᭵ኑश क ኆⓠ ID बनवा⸏䀊 ्ቦी ्ቛाኜᮜा बनवा⸏䀊 ID हाँ RBO 02.01.2024 क ኆⓠ मኜᮜम्मत क ᭵ኑ क ै स᭵ኑ尭敿 दिनक ाल᭵ኑ ⶯ᮽय᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑ, मኜᮜम्मत क ᭵ኑ बाद उनक ो यथावत ATM क ो खोला नहीं ⶯ᮽया थाⓧⷫ यह पूኜᮜी घ尭敿ना CCT)v ⶯ᮽ⸏䀊 थी, बहादुኜᮜ थापा स᭵ኑ अवक ाश पኜᮜ थ᭵ኑⓧⷫ 03.01.2024 क ो ATM स᭵ኑन्सኜᮜ ल᭵ኑक ኜᮜ ATM क ᭵ኑ स(cid:3)ी लिलए ्ቦी थापा स᭵ኑ फोन पኜᮜ OTC उनक ो वाल्尭敿 म䀐䃑 सुኜᮜति्ቌत ኜᮜखा ⶯ᮽया था तथा दिफኜᮜ स᭵ኑ ኜᮜखा ⶯ᮽया थाⓧⷫ क ै स᭵ኑ尭敿ो म䀐䃑 सुኜᮜति्ቌत हैⓧⷫ ्ቦीनኜᮜ म䀐䃑

13. दिद. 10.01.2024 क ो ्ቦी क ै श दिमलान पኜᮜ दिक तनी ኜᮜोक ड़ शा尭敿$ दिवኜᮜ᭵ኑश औኜᮜ आप ्ቛाኜᮜा ADWM म䀐䃑 दिमलीⓧⷫ Rs. 10.00 लाख शा尭敿$ दिमली थीⓧⷫ क्या दिद. 10.01.2024 क ो ADWM लाख ኜᮜोक ड़ शा尭敿$ दिमलन᭵ኑ आप न᭵ኑ क ं 尭敿्रोलኜᮜ क ो म䀐䃑 क ै श दिमलान पኜᮜ Rs दिक या रिኜᮜपो尭敿$

14. 10.00 थाⓧⷫ हाँ, 10.01.2024 चैनल मैन᭵ኑजኜᮜ आय᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑ, 10.01.2024 इसक ो पኜᮜ 12.01.2024 क ो Email दिक या ⶯ᮽया थाⓧⷫ क ो 尭敿᭵ኑलीफोन पኜᮜ दिक या थाⓧⷫ 10.01.2024 क ो औኜᮜ 11.01.2024 क ो रिኜᮜक ान्साइल नहीं होन᭵ኑ ्ቛाኜᮜा क ं 尭敿्रोिሴल⶯ᮽ आदिफस क ो सूतिचत रिኜᮜक ान्साइल क ኜᮜन᭵ኑ क ा ्ቚयास दिक या ⶯ᮽया ********* PW-2 (Rahul Gangwar) 4 WRIA No. 11470/2025

4. क्या न᭵ኑ ኜᮜोक ड़ क ा दिद. 22.12.2023 क ो ADWM म䀐䃑 क ै श व᭵ኑኜᮜीदिफक ᭵ኑ शन म䀐䃑 आप दिमलान दिफसिजक ल क ै श क ाउं尭敿 क ኜᮜक ᭵ኑ दिक या थाⓧⷫ दिफसिजक ल क ै श क ाउन्尭敿 क ኜᮜक ᭵ኑ नहीं, साኜᮜ᭵ኑ क ै श᭵ኑ尭敿 मैन᭵ኑ नहीं द᭵ኑखा क ᭵ኑ वल दिमभि्ቦत नो尭敿 वाला क ै स᭵ኑ尭敿 द᭵ኑखा थाⓧⷫ दिक या था ADWM न᭵ኑ दिमलान नहीं

5. दिद. 22.12.2023 क ो ADWM ADWM ᭵ኑ खोल क ኜᮜ दिक सन᭵ኑ क ा क ै श 尭敿्र दिदखाया थाⓧⷫ म䀐䃑 क ै श व᭵ኑኜᮜीदिफश᭵ኑन म䀐䃑 आप क ो क ै स᭵ኑ尭敿 क ो ्ቦी नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा जी न᭵ኑ खोल क ኜᮜ दिदखाया था मैन᭵ኑ क ै स क ाउन्尭敿 नहीं दिक या थाⓧⷫ दिदन मैन᭵ኑ क ै श व᭵ኑኜᮜीदिफक ᭵ኑ शन रिኜᮜपो尭敿$ तैयाኜᮜ क ኜᮜ ज्वाइन्尭敿 क स्尭敿ोतिडयन उसी स᭵ኑ हस्ता्ቌኜᮜ क ኜᮜता क ኜᮜ RBO क ो सबदिम尭敿 दिक या थाⓧⷫ ्ቚस्तुतक ता$ अतिधक ाኜᮜी ्ቛाኜᮜा ्ቚ⻁䀺 पूण$ हुआⓧⷫ बचाव प्ቌ – हम䀐䃑 क ो⸏䀊 ्ቚ⻁䀺 नहीं पूEना हैⓧⷫ ⶯ᮽवाह क ा बयान पूण$ हुआⓧⷫ ************** PW-3 (Sompal Gangwar) क्या पहल᭵ኑ स᭵ኑ ADWM

12. म䀐䃑 मौजूद क ै श क ो ्ቦी नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा न᭵ኑ स्वम बै⶯ᮽ (cid:3)ኜᮜा औኜᮜ आप स᭵ኑ क ै श (cid:3)ኜᮜा बै⶯ᮽ अपन᭵ኑ तथा ्ቦी अदिमत शु्ቇा क ᭵ኑ साथ साथ ADWM स᭵ኑ ल᭵ኑक ኜᮜ ्ቜांच म䀐䃑 ल᭵ኑ चलन᭵ኑ क ो क हा थाⓧⷫ ्ቦी नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा न᭵ኑ ADWM हाँ, क ो मौजूद क ै श स्वयं बै⶯ᮽ म䀐䃑 (cid:3)ኜᮜ᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑⓧⷫ क ै श (cid:3)ኜᮜा बै⶯ᮽ म䀐䃑 औኜᮜ अदिमत शु्ቇा क ᭵ኑ साथ ्ቜांच म䀐䃑 ल᭵ኑ आयाⓧⷫ नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा ADWM दिनक ालक ኜᮜ दिफኜᮜ शाखा म䀐䃑 आय᭵ኑⓧⷫ म䀐䃑 पचD दिद. 06.12.2023 क ो ADWM क्या

13. क ै श स᭵ኑ (cid:3)ኜᮜा बै⶯ᮽ आप न᭵ኑ ADWM थापा क ो सुपुद$ क ኜᮜ दिदय᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑⓧⷫ म䀐䃑 पहल᭵ኑ स᭵ኑ मौजूद समस्त स᭵ኑ ्ቜांच म䀐䃑 आन᭵ኑ पኜᮜ ्ቦी नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ हाँ मैन᭵ኑ क ै श स᭵ኑ (cid:3)ኜᮜा बै⶯ᮽ नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा क ो सुपुद$ क ኜᮜ दिदय᭵ኑ थ᭵ኑⓧⷫ ्ቚस्तुत क ता$ अतिधक ाኜᮜी ्ቛाኜᮜा ्ቚ⻁䀺 पूण$ हुआⓧⷫ बचाव प्ቌ- हम䀐䃑 क ो⸏䀊 ्ቚ⻁䀺 नहीं पूEना हैⓧⷫ ”

6. It is not disputed that entire occurrence was captured in CCTV footage and was produced during inquiry and relevant description of 06.12.2023 between 15:06 to 15:49 Hours are mentioned in inquiry report are quoted below :- 1

१५.०६. २१ बज᭵ኑ शाखा ्ቚबंधक ), ( अदिमत शु्ቇा ⸏䀊चाज$) क ᭵ኑ साथ सोमपाल ⶯ᮽं⶯ᮽवाኜᮜ ( क ै श (cid:3)ኜᮜा हुआ बै⶯ᮽ ल᭵ኑक ኜᮜ ए 尭敿ी एम म䀐䃑 आए. नኜᮜ बहादुኜᮜ थापा संद᭵ኑश वाहक ) (क ै श शाखा स᭵ኑ 2

१५.०८. ४६ बज᭵ኑ थापा न᭵ኑ ए 尭敿ी एम क ा हुड उठाया. 5 WRIA No. 11470/2025 सोमपाल न᭵ኑ शाखा स᭵ኑ लाय᭵ኑ ⶯ᮽय᭵ኑ बै⶯ᮽ स᭵ኑ दिनक ाल क ኜᮜ ५०० क ኆⓠ २० ⶯ᮽतिbयां क ु ल १० लाख रुपय᭵ኑ ए 尭敿ी एम क ᭵ኑ ऊपኜᮜ ኜᮜखा. बै⶯ᮽ खाली हो ⶯ᮽया. ए 尭敿ी एम क ᭵ኑ क ै स᭵ኑ्ሾस स᭵ኑ साኜᮜा क ै श दिनक ाल क ኜᮜ थापा न᭵ኑ खाली बै⶯ᮽ म䀐䃑 ኜᮜखा. ए 尭敿ी एम क ᭵ኑ ऊपኜᮜ ኜᮜख᭵ኑ ⶯ᮽय᭵ኑ १०. थापा न᭵ኑ ए 尭敿ी एम क ᭵ኑ क ै स᭵ኑ्ሾस म䀐䃑 (cid:3)ኜᮜ दिदया ०० लाख रूपय᭵ኑ क ो बै⶯ᮽ म䀐䃑 ኜᮜखा ए 尭敿ी एम स᭵ኑ सोमपाल ⶯ᮽं⶯ᮽवाኜᮜ शाखा म䀐䃑 ल᭵ኑ जान᭵ኑ क ᭵ኑ दिनक ाला ⶯ᮽया साኜᮜा क ै श लिलय᭵ኑ उठाय᭵ኑ अदिमत औኜᮜ थापा न᭵ኑ ए 尭敿ी एम क ा वाल्尭敿 औኜᮜ हुड बंद दिक या अदिमत शु्ቇा ए 尭敿ी एम स᭵ኑ चल᭵ኑ ⶯ᮽय᭵ኑ, ए 尭敿ी एम म䀐䃑 ही थ᭵ኑ. सोमपाल तथा थापा 3

१५.१६. १८ बज᭵ኑ

१५.१७. ३० बज᭵ኑ

१५.१९. १५ बज᭵ኑ

१५.२१. ५३ बज᭵ኑ

१५.२२. ४२ बज᭵ኑ

१५.३०. ५५ बज᭵ኑ 4 5 6 7 8 9

१५.४६. ०० बज᭵ኑ थापा न᭵ኑ ए 尭敿ी एम स᭵ኑ पचD दि्ቚन्尭敿 क ኆⓠ. 10 १५.४८. २२ बज᭵ኑ थापा औኜᮜ सोमपाल एक साथ ए 尭敿ी एम स᭵ኑ क ै श (cid:3)ኜᮜ᭵ኑ बै⶯ᮽ क ᭵ኑ साथ दिनक ल᭵ኑ. 11 १५.४९. ०० बज᭵ኑ ए०尭敿ी०एम० म䀐䃑 ्ቇाहक आन᭵ኑ ल⶯ᮽ᭵ኑ

7. Each witness has submitted that petitioner has put only ظ✿ 10,00,000/- on ADWM which was filled at relevant place, therefore, allegations that petitioner has not deposited ظ✿ 10,00,000/- was evident from CCTV footage and that admittedly, petitioner has not cross examined any witness during inquiry.

8. S/Sri K.R. Singh and Kunal Singh, learned advocates for petitioner have submitted that money was taken from ADWM on

11.01.2024 when the petitioner was on medical leave and currency remained with other persons for substantial period and there is no explanation with the said employee, therefore, subsequent counting of money where a shortfall of 10,00,000/- ظ✿ was shown could not be considered to be a genuine counting.

9. Learned advocates for petitioner have referred a letter dated

13.02.2024 that shortfall was reported in evening so there was 6 WRIA No. 11470/2025 enough time for other employees, who were Joint Custodian of money, to embezzle the amount.

10. Per contra, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent – Bank has submitted that once it is clearly evident in CCTV footage that petitioner has only deposited 10,00,000/- ظ✿ instead of 20,00,000/-. He is not in a position to shift the ظ✿ burden of shortfall and CCTV footage is not denied.

11. Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon judgments of Supreme Court in Bank of India and another vs. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762, State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, State of Madras vs. G. Sundaram, AIR 1965 SC 1103, Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank and others, (2003) 3 SCC 583 and B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749.

12. In rejoinder, learned advocates for petitioner have submitted that in similar nature of charges, one Amit Kapoor, Chief Associate was awarded lessor punishment i.e. discharge from services with superannuation benefits whereas petitioner was awarded with maximum punishment of removal without notice.

13. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

14. It is not a case of petitioner that on 06.12.2023, petitioner has not filled the tray of ADWM. It is also not a case of petitioner that amount to be put in tray was 20,00,000/- and ظ✿ that he was custodian of said amount. It is also not a case of petitioner that before 10.01.2024, tray was taken out from said machine for refill. The disciplinary inquiry was conducted in due process. The petitioner was granted opportunity to cross-examine 7 WRIA No. 11470/2025 3 witnesses but as per the records, he has refused to cross- examine.

15. CCTV footage of relevant date and time shows that petitioner has put only 10,00,000/- on ADWM and filled only ظ✿ said currency in tray and said version is also corroborated from statement of witnesses. Petitioner has not come up with any explanation that he has filled 20,00,000/- on said date instead ظ✿ of 10,00,000/-. The petitioner is not able to deny veracity of ظ✿ CCTV recordings.

16. In aforesaid circumstances, argument of learned advocates for petitioner that the remaining money was taken out from tray when the petitioner was on medical leave and there was a possibility that the then Custodian has taken 10,00,000/- has ظ✿ no force since earlier referred CCTV footage is of 06.12.2023 i.e. earlier point of time which shows that petitioner has deposited only 10,00,000/- instead of 20,00,000/-, therefore, petitioner ظ✿ ظ✿ has to firstly explain that whether he has deposited 20,00,000/- ظ✿ or not and in the cross examination, he has not asked any question to witnesses.

17. In aforesaid circumstances, Court takes note of judgment of Supreme Court in Bhupendra Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 113 wherein principle of causing interference in disciplinary proceedings was reiterated in following manner :- “33. Certain generic principles governing interference with orders of punishment that are passed following inquiry proceedings have evolved over a period of time. Law is well settled that an administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not ordinarily subject to correction in judicial review 8 WRIA No. 11470/2025 because the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. If there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the high court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, should on consideration of the materials on record, the court be satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, or that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted contrary to statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, or that the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or that the conclusion of is ex facie arbitrary or capricious, so much so that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion, or there is any other ground very similar to the above, the high court may in the exercise of its discretion interfere to set things right. After all, public servants to whom Article 311 of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated. disciplinary authority

34. It would further be of immense profit, at this stage, to consider a specific principle which is tailored to the particular situation and could clinch the issue. The Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking through Hon'ble P.B. Gajendragadkar, J., in Union of India v. H.C. Goel8 laid down a specific test which could be applied if a contention were raised that the conclusion is based on no evidence. Relevant passages from the said decision evincing one of the two questions arising for decision and the answer thereto, read as follows: “1. Two short questions of law arise for our decision in the present appeal. The first question is … ; and the other question is whether the High Court in dealing with a writ petition filed by a Government Officer who has been dismissed from Government service is entitled to hold that the conclusion reached by the 9 WRIA No. 11470/2025 Government in regard to his misconduct if (sic, is) not supported by any evidence at all. As our judgment will show, we are inclined to answer both the questions in the affirmative. Thus, the appellant, the Union of India, succeeds on the first point, but fails on the second. …

20. … It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is not right when he contends that in the circumstances of this case, the conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence whatever. It is a conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the face of the record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. In dealing with writ petitions filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Article 311(2), the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. It is true that the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order; nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence. …

23. … In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. 10 WRIA No. 11470/2025 In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence illegally (sic, legally) the impugned conclusion follows or not. …

26. … Though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the appellant to root out corruption from public service, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquires held under the statutory rules. …” (emphasis supplied) decision

35. It also needs to be emphasised that although the traditional concept of natural justice comprises of the two rules that prohibit anyone from being condemned unheard and anyone from being a judge of his own cause, jurisprudence on natural justice principles have seen a distinct shift ever in Maneka Gandhi v. India9 constitutionalised principles of natural justice, as held in Madhayamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India10. Drawing inspiration from such authorities, it would be apt to observe that in relation to disciplinary proceedings, subject to just exceptions, natural justice would envisage observance of procedural fairness before holding a public servant guilty of misconduct and imposing a punishment on him for such misconduct. While it is true that principles of natural justice supplement, and not supplant, the law, such principles have been declared by this Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14. Validity of any 11 WRIA No. 11470/2025 disciplinary action, whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable. To test whether interference is warranted, this Court has laid down that the scrutiny ought to be confined to finding out whether the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted fairly; if not, an inference can be drawn that this has caused prejudice to the charged employee. Be that as it may, there can be no gainsaying that the consequences of violation of a fair procedure, which principles of natural justice embody, in a given situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis bearing in mind that judicial review is not intended to be an appeal in disguise.”

18. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in impugned order. The charges were completely proved that petitioner has put only ظ✿ 10,00,000/- in tray of ADWM instead of 20,00,000/- and defence put during argument ظ✿ has no factual or legal basis being contrary to CCTV footage which remained uncontroverted.

19. In view of above discussion, present writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed. Dt./- September 24, 2025 N. Sinha [SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.] NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad