A bank clerk cashiered for allegedly retaining Rs.50,000/- excess cash from a customer challenged his compulsory retirement confirmed on appeal. The court held judicial review could not re-appreciate enquiry evidence and found no manifest error, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Reserved on 06/05/2025 Delivered on 02/09/2025
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(S) No. 6138 of 2016
Ram Avtar Verma, S/o Shri Omram Verma, aged about 52 Years, R/o Village and Post Champa Neora Tahsil Tilda, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
Versus Bank Of India Through Zone Manager, Raipur Zone, First Floor G.D. Shesh Nilayam Tatyapara Raipur Chhattisgarh, General Manager, First Floor G.D. Shesh Nilayam Tatyapara Raipur Chhattisgarh Branch Manager, Bank Of India Tilda Neora, Branch Raipur Zone, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents Cause Title is taken from CIS system ___________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Shri Narmada Prasad Choudhary and Shri Ashok K.Patil, Advocates. For Respondent : Shri Parth Shrivastava, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
CAV Order
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the following relief:-
-2-
2. The present petition is preferred against the order dated 8.8.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the appellate authority – Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Raipur Zone, received by the petitioner on 19.8.2016 whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefit and without disqualification for future employment in terms of clause 6(c) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002, has been imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure P-15) has been confirmed.
3. The Facts: The petitioner was working as CTO in Tilda-Neora Branch of Bank of India, Raipur with honesty, sincerity and due diligence to the satisfaction of his superior authorities. While working there, it was alleged that on 25.6.2014 he received excess amount of Rs. 50,000/- from one customer of the bank namely Rajesh Jain who on the said date deposited Rs. 5 lacs in his four accounts each i.e. total Rs. 20 lacs at the cash counter. However, despite being aware of having received the excess amount, the petitioner did not refund the same to Shri Rajesh Jain nor did he disclose the said fact to the bank authorities, and thus taking into consideration the alleged act of the petitioner to be a serious misconduct, he was suspended vide order dated 2.7.2014. Thereafter, an enquiry was initiated against him wherein he was provided an opportunity of defending himself. He adduced evidence in support of his case. However, the Disciplinary Authority without considering the defence of the petitioner and without considering the evidence adduced in support of his case in its proper perspective imposed upon him the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefit without disqualification for future employment vide order darted 15.12.2015, which has been confirmed in appeal as well.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was issued a charge-
-3-
10/04/2002. He submits that thereafter a Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and without giving a proper opportunity, and without supplying relevant documents to the petitioner, he was proceeded against. He submits that the allegation against the petitioner is in respect of receipt of excess amount of Rs. 50,000/- from one Customer- Rajesh Jain but the same was not deposited with the Bank. When the excess payment of cash of Rs.50,000/- came to the knowledge of the petitioner, it was immediately informed to the Bank Manager who orally asked the petitioner to keep it with the bank deposit ans as soon as the customer claiming the same would come, it would be refunded back to him. Incidentally, the star witness – Rajesh Jain was not examined during the inquiry and therefore, the charges against the petitioner is not proved. Alternatively he submits that there is no loss caused to the Bank as per Clause 5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10/04/2002. Therefore, the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the charges against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner had unblemished service carrier of 25 years and only for one instance, the petitioner ought not to have been imposed with major penalty of compulsory retirement. He submits that the respondent ought to have considered the case of the petitioner looking to his long tenure of service and liability upon the petitioner, and thereby shuld have imposed lesser punishment. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. Balasubrahmanyam (2021) 5 SCC 662 in paragraph 18 and 22 to contend that when there is no charge of any bribery, the major penalty should not be imposed on the employee, and also placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 10.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ Bank submits that the petitioner was charged with serious allegations of pocketing an amount of Rs.50,000/- and the excess amount received by the petitioner was neither deposited in the bank nor it was informed to the Higher Officials. He submits that simply because no loss
-4-
is caused to the Bank, it should to not mean that the petitioner was not guilty of Clause 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10/04/2002 which indicates that if the petitioner is found to be grossly negligent and his act is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank then his conduct is likely to put the Bank to serious loss, which amountd to major misconduct warranting imposition of major punishment. In the case in hand, the petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing in the course of enquiry and in fact, the petitioner in his reply to the Show Cause notice had admitted the factum of receipt of excess amount of Rs.50,000/- and not informing the same to the Branch Manager. It’s a case where the petitioner has admitted his guilt and therefore considering all aspect of matter and evaluating the evidence on record, the Departmental Enquiry Officers gave a report against the petitioner that the charge made against him is found to be established and proved. Thereafter, the punishment order was issued which was subjected to the appeal by the petitioner to the Higher Appellate Authority who also after due deliberation of the submission and the grounds raised in the appeal, affirmed the order of compulsory retirement. He further submits that the findings so recorded by the Disciplinary Officer as well as the Appellate Authority are based upon the proper appreciation of evidence, and this Court cannot sit as the Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence brought during the course of the Enquiry. He further submits that looking to the gross miss-conduct, the petitioner was imposed with penalty of compulsory retirement but with retiral benefits and no disqualification for future employment. This Court could not substitute the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority in the writ jurisdiction. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in case of Smt. Fulmati Choudhary Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. W.A. No. 310/2020.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended documents.
7. A charge-sheet (Annexure P/8) was issued to the petitioners which reads as under :-
-5-
“36. Charge sheet - During your tenure as Staff Clerk-Cashier at Bank's Tilda Neora Branch from 26.07.2011 till the date of your suspension i.e, on 02.07.2014, you have committed the following acts of gross misconduct.
CHARGE-I
On 25.06.2014, Shri Rajesh Jain visited the Bank's Tilda Neora Branch for depositing Rs.5,00,000/- each, in four different Savings Bank accounts held in his own name and in the names of his 3 family members. Shri Jain erroneously tendered cash of Rs.20,50,000/- instead of Rs. 20,00,000/-, In one of the counterfoils pertaining to the cash deposit in SB Alc No.935910110002785 of Miss Nisha Jain, duly acknowledged by you, the denominations of currency notes were written as 100 X 500 (Rs.50,000/-) and 1000 X 500 (Rs.5,00,000/-), The Branch CCTV footage of 25.06.2014 indicated that you received three bundles of Rs. 500/denomination notes (Rs.15,00,000/-) and eleven packets of Rs.500/- denomination notes (Rs.5,50,000/-), aggregating cash of Rs.20,50,000/- from Shri Rajesh Jain.
You neither accounted for the excess cash of Rs.50,000/- in the books of the Branch nor informed about the receipt of the excess cash to the Branch Manager on 25.06.2014. You preferred to retain the excess cash of Rs.50,000/- with you without any justification. In the above manner, you misappropriated cash of Rs. 50,000/-
When Shri Rajesh Jain visited the Branch on 27.06.2014 and raised the issue of depositing excess cash on 25.06.2014, you denied having received excess cash of Rs.50,000/- with fraudulent intent of misappropriation of the said sum of Rs.50.000/-
When Shri Rajesh Jain raised the issue with the Branch Manager, enquiries were made by seeing the CCTV footage of the incident on 01.07.2014. When confronted with the CCTV footage, you yourself witnessed of having accepted 3 bundles of Rs.500/- denominations (Rs.15,00,000/-) & 11 packets of Rs.500/- denominations (5,50,000/-) making a total of Rs.20,50,000/- from Shri Rajesh Jain. After seeing CCTV footage, you returned cash
-6-
of Rs.50,000/- to Shri Jain on 01.07.2014, by obtaining his acknowledgement on the reverse of deposit voucher dated 25.06.2014 pertaining to A/c No.935910110000925 of Rajesh Jain HUF.
Para 5 G): "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.”
8. Along-with the charge-sheet, list of documents by which the allegations are proposed to be substantiated and list of witnesses by whom the allegations are proposed to substantiated have also been supplied to the petitioner.
9. This Courts can exercise the power of judicial review if there is manifest error in the departmental proceedings carried out by the authorities or if the power is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist or which are patently erroneous. A departmental enquiry cannot be equated with a criminal trial where charges are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but in a departmental enquiry, the standard of proof required to prove the charges is that of preponderance of probability. This principle has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in the matters of S.R.Tewari v. Union of India {(2013) 6 SCC 602}, Sanjay Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Others {AIR 2012 SC 1783}, Union of India & Others v. Bodupalli Gopalaswami {(2011) 13 SCC 553}, Union of India & Others v. P. Gunasekaran {(2015) 2 SCC 610}, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya {(2011) 4 SCC 584}.
10. The Supreme Court in case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 held that power of judicial review exercised by constitutional Courts under Articles 32,136 and 226 of Constitution is circumscribed by limits of correcting error of law or
-7-
procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principle of natural justice and is not akin to adjudication any case on merits as an appellate authority. Relevant portion of the observations made by the Supreme Court reads as under:-
“24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope or judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
-8-
findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”
11. It is a settled principle of law that the power of judicial review cannot be exercised
12. Thus looking to the seriousness of the allegations and that there was a charge that the petitioner pocketed an amount of Rs.50,000/- and the excess amount received by the petitioner was not informed to the Higher Officials, the disciplinary authority imposed the above punishment detailed above which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well. After giving thoughtful consideration to the documents available on record, I do not find it to be a fit case to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Ashish/J
ASHISH Digitally signedby ASHISHTIWARI TIWARI Date:2025.09.0318:22:16 +0530
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compulsory retirement imposed after departmental enquiry for pocketing excess cash was liable to interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. BalasubrahmanyamReferred
(2021) 5 SCC 662 · Who else cites this
Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.Referred
(1999) 2 SCC 10 · Who else cites this
Smt. Fulmati Choudhary Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.Referred
W.A. No. 310/2020
S.R. Tewari v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶9
{(2013) 6 SCC 602} · Who else cites this
Sanjay Kumar Singh v. Union of India & OthersRelied on¶9
{AIR 2012 SC 1783} · Who else cites this
Union of India & Others v. Bodupalli GopalaswamiRelied on¶9
{(2011) 13 SCC 553} · Who else cites this
Union of India & Others v. P. GunasekaranRelied on¶9
{(2015) 2 SCC 610} · Who else cites this
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand NalwayaRelied on¶9
{(2011) 4 SCC 584} · Who else cites this
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vs. Ajai Kumar SrivastavaRelied on¶10
(2021) 2 SCC 612 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Avtar Verma
Bank of India through Zone Manager, Raipur Zone
General Manager, Bank of India
Branch Manager, Bank of India Tilda Neora Branch
Sachin Singh Rajput
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
