Dismissed

Bhagirath Keshri v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank through Its Chairman

Jharkhand HC12 Jun 2024LPA/410/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters patent appeal by a bank officer challenging dismissal of his writ petition against a major penalty of downgrading from MMG-II to JMG-I for irregular loan sanctioning at Kiriburu branch. The Division Court condoned the delay, held no prejudice was shown, and dismissed the appeal upholding the penalty.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1460 days condoned; appeal against refusal to interfere with major penalty dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Bhagirath Keshri Vs Jharkhand Gramin Bank through… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

--------

¶3

L.P.A. No. 410 of 2023 With I.A. No.10216 of 2023

¶4

Bhagirath Keshri, aged about 64 years, son of Late Puran Chandra Keshri, resident of Subhnath Deogam Nagar, Dumbisai, Tungri, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Muffasil, District West Singhbhum-833201 (Jharkhand).

¶5

… … Appellant/Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jharkhand Gramin Bank through its Chairman, having its office at Rajendra Palace, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand).

¶8

The Chairman, Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Appellate Authority, Head Office having its office at Rajendra Palace, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi – 834001 (Jharkhand).

¶9

The General Manager and Competent Authority, Jharkhand Gramin Bank Head Office having its office at Rajendra Palace, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand).

¶10

The Regional Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Singhbhum Region having its office at Amlatola, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum-833201 (Jharkhand).

¶11

The Branch Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Kiriburu Branch under Singhbhum Region, P.O. Kiriburu, P.S. Kiriburu, District West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, Jharkhand – 833205 (Jharkhand).

¶12

.. … Respondents/Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶14

For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate

¶15

Page 1 of 17

¶16

L.P.A. No. 410 of 2023

¶17

Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate Mrs. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate

¶18

C.A.V. on 14^th May, 2024 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:

¶19

Pronounced on 12/06/2024

¶20

I.A. No.10216 of 2023:

¶21

This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 1460 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

¶22

No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed.

¶23

Heard the parties.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has taken the ground for condonation of delay that after the judgment having been passed in W.P.(S) No. 2488 of 2016 vide order dated 25.07.2017, letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No. 465 of 2017 was filed after obtaining certified copy. The said L.P.A. was disposed of on 25.07.2018 as being not pressed at this stage in order to prefer review application before the learned Single Judge.

¶25

Thereafter, after obtaining the certified copies of the order dated 25.07.2018 in L.P.A. No. 465 of 2017, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred Civil Review No. 73 of 2018 which was dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2023 and thereafter, the instant appeal has been preferred in which the delay of 1460 days has been pointed out, as such, prayer has been made that the delay occurred in the filing the instant appeal may be condoned.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

¶27

Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 1460 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

¶28

L.P.A. No. 410 of 2023:

¶29

Page 2 of 17

¶30

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶31

Prayer:

¶32

The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 25.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2488 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment dated 23.11.2015 passed by the General Manager and Competent Authority as well as the appellate order dated 12.02.2016 passed by the Chairman and Appellate Authority has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.

¶33

Facts:

¶34

The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:

¶35

The petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent bank (erstwhile Sighbhum Kshetriya Gramin Bank now at present known as Jharkhand Gramin Bank) to the post of Branch Manager Scale I Officer on 08.10.1982 whose service was confirmed on 10.01.1985 and he was subsequently promoted to scale II Officer (MMG-II) with effect from 25.08.2005 and worked as Branch Managers in different branches.

¶36

The petitioner, while working, was served with a Memo calling for explanation for the irregularities in sanctioning/ Disbursement of the loans & Advances at Kiriburu Branch during his tenure as Branch Manager by the Respondent No.4 vide his Ref. No. RO/IR/201314/001 dated 24.10.2013.

¶37

The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 07.12.2013 to the Respondent No. 4 thereby denying all allegations with reasoning mentioned therein.

¶38

Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 decided to institute disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for major penalty alleged to have been committed by him, accordingly, the petitioner was intimated and served with Charge Sheet vide Ref. No. JGB: HO: IR: 2014-15: 107 dated 10.09.2014 enclosing thereby articles of charge and statements of allegations, list of documents and list of witnesses.

¶39

Page 3 of 17

¶40

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶41

The Respondent No. 3 has also served to the petitioner the copies of his Ref.No. JGB: HO: IR: 2014-15 109 & 110 dated 10.09.2014 thereby appointing Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh Senior Manager Bhilaipahari Branch as Inquiring Authority (I.A.) to enquire into the charges and Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey Manager Ghorabanda Branch as Presenting Officer (P.O.) to present the case in support of the Charges framed against petitioner.

¶42

The Respondent: No. 4 through his Ref. No. RO: IR: 2014-15: 008 dated 16.09.2014 has handed over above mentioned charge sheet as well as copies of appointments of I.A. & P.O. issued by the Respondent No. 3 to the petitioner on the same day. That it is stated that subsequently the departmental proceedings were held from 01.12.2014 and concluded on 14.07.2015.

¶43

It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner participated in the said enquiry through his defence representative but some important documents being demanded by the petitioner for his defence were neither provided on the pretext that the same were privileged documents and some of them are not in the custody of the presenting officer.

¶44

It is also the case of the petitioner that altogether depositions of 2 Management witnesses (M.W.-1 & M.W.-2) were recorded and 74 Managements Exhibits were brought on record for their examination as (M.Exts) on behalf of the Management during the departmental proceedings and only 70 defence documents as (D.Exts) were brought on record by the C.S.O for his defence as some more important relevant documents were not supplied to him.

¶45

The Inquiring Authority has submitted findings of departmental enquiry before the General Manager and Competent Authority thereby proving all charges conclusively without considering the oral as well as documentary evidences adduced by the petitioner and the materials on records.

¶46

Page 4 of 17

¶47

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶48

Thereafter, as per instructions of the General Manager and Competent Authority the petitioner submitted his detailed reply/ representation on the enquiry findings on 12.10 2015.

¶49

Thereafter, vide order dated 23.11.2015, the penalty order was passed awarding the major penalty of ""Downgrade of Scale from MMG-II to JMG-I and fitment of pay at the initial of JMG-I i.e. Rs. 23,700/-till superannuation with cumulative effect" under Regulation No.39.1(b) of Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 to the petitioner

¶50

The petitioner preferred an appeal against this Penalty Order dated 23.11.2015 to the Chairman- Cum-Appellate Authority (Respondent No.2) on 04.01.2016 but the same was rejected vide order dated 12.02.2016 and penalty order as inflicted upon the writ petitioner was affirmed vide order dated 23.11.2015.

¶51

Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2488 of 2016, wherein, the appellant-writ petitioner has taken the ground of providing no sufficient and adequate opportunity of hearing particularly, the inspection report has not been supplied to the writ petitioner.

¶52

The writ court has called upon the respondent-Bank and after taking into consideration the ground taken as also the nature of allegation and further the appellant-writ petitioner has not made any objection in the conduct of the enquiry report, has dismissed the writ petition, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶53

Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant:

¶54

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the administrative authorities:

¶55

(i) The ground has been taken that the appellant-writ petitioner has all along participated in the enquiry but even then some important documents were not supplied to the writ petitioner to put forth his defence, reason best known to the respondentPage 5 of 17 L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶56

authorities as also the inspection report has not been provided to the writ petitioner.

¶57

(ii) The ground has also been taken that the request of the writ petitioner to examine the relevant borrowers in the enquiry so that he can prove his innocence regarding the allegation/charge of non-existence of some borrowers was also rejected on the ground that the outsiders are not allowed in the departmental enquiry.

¶58

(iii) The ground has also been taken that adequate and sufficient opportunity has not been provided to the writ petitioner to put forth his defence.

¶59

Learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of the aforesaid, has submitted that the said aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the learned Single Judge, as such, the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

¶60

Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents:

¶61

Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned order:

¶62

(i) It is incorrect on the part of the writ petitioner to take the ground that adequate and sufficient opportunity has not been granted rather it has been submitted by referring to the stand taken in the counter affidavit wherein in the specific question put to the appellant that “do you wish to present any more defence exhibits or present any DWs?”

¶63

The answer of the writ petitioner was in negative.

¶64

Learned senior counsel, based upon the aforesaid stand of

¶65

the appellant, has submitted that once the writ petitioner denied to have further opportunity to produce any document or to examine witnesses, he now cannot be allowed to agitate the same

¶66

Page 6 of 17

¶67

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶68

that he has not been provided adequate and sufficient opportunity in defending the charge.

¶69

(ii) Learned senior counsel responding to the ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the inspection report has not been provided to the appellant, submission has been made that no such requisition has ever been made. Further, it is the admitted case of the appellant as would be evident from the defence reply that there is irregularity in some of the loan account which itself suggest that he is negligent in discharge of is official duty.

¶70

(iii) The ground, therefore, has been taken that even accepting that the inspection report has not been given, it cannot be said to cause any prejudice reason being that he himself has admitted the fact of commission of irregularity.

¶71

(iv) Learned senior counsel has further submitted by referring to the nature of allegation wherein the loan has been disbursed even to the non-existing shops and the party concerned without any collateral security. The respondent-bank has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and after finding the charge to be proved, the order of reversion has been passed from MMG-II to JMG-I which is by taking lenient view.

¶72

Learned senior counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, suffers from no error.

¶73

Analysis:

¶74

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

¶75

This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the enquiry report as also the decision of the disciplinary authority and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, deems it fit and proper to refer the scope of judicial review in exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard be made to the

¶76

Page 7 of 17

¶77

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶78

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, AIR 2015 SC 545 , in particular to paragraph 13, laying down following guidelines which are self-explanatory:

¶79

“13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. 1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

¶80

a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

¶81

c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

¶82

d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

¶83

e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

¶84

f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

¶85

g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

¶86

h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

¶87

i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

¶88

Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

¶89

(i) re-appreciate the evidence;

¶90

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

¶91

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

¶92

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

¶93

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

¶94

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

¶95

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”

¶96

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Management of State Bank of India

¶97

vs. Smita Sharad Deshmukh and Anr., (2017) 4 SCC 75 , has laid down that it is equally settled position of law that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can certainly interfere

¶98

Page 8 of 17

¶99

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶100

with the quantum of punishment, if it is found disproportionate to the gravity of offence.

¶101

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. vs. Abrar Ali , AIR (2017) SC 200 , has laid down following guidelines at paragraph 8 for interference by the High Court in the matter of punishment imposed on conclusion of the departmental proceeding, which is quoted herein below:

¶102

“ 8. Contrary to findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the High Court accepted the version of the Respondent that he fell ill and was being treated by a local doctor without assigning any reasons. It was held by the Disciplinary Authority that the Unit had better medical facilities which could have been availed by the Respondent if he was really suffering from illness. It was further held that the delinquent did not produce any evidence of treatment by a local doctor. The High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts which tantamounts to reappreciation of evidence. It is settled law that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶103

In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 : (AIR 2011 SC 1931, Para 6), this Court held as follows:

¶104

" 7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.

¶105

In Union of India and Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 this Court held as follows:

¶106

"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the inquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High

¶107

Page 9 of 17 L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶108

Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

¶109

(a) the inquiry is held by a competent authority;

¶110

(b) the inquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

¶111

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

¶112

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

¶113

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

¶114

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

¶115

(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

¶116

(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

¶117

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

¶118

13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

¶119

(i) re-appreciate the evidence;

¶120

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the inquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

¶121

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

¶122

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

¶123

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

¶124

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

¶125

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."

¶126

It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the law has been laid down that in which circumstances, the power of judicial review is to be exercised and in which circumstances, it is not to be exercised.

¶127

This Court is now proceeding to examine the factual aspect based upon the nature of charge as also the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in order to assess as to whether the case of the appellant-writ petitioner is coming under the fold of the power of judicial review to show interference with the impugned order.

¶128

This Court, for the aforesaid purpose, needs to refer herein the charges as per the memorandum of charge which reads as under:

¶129

Page 10 of 17

¶130

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶131

“ ARTICLES OF CHARGE

¶132

Acts of misconduct as herein mentioned are alleged to have been committed by you, during your tenure as Branch Manager of Bank’s Kiriburu branch from 15.01.2008 to 01.12.2011.

¶133

ARTICLE-I

¶134

In gross violation of Bank’s lending norms, systems and procedures, you recklessly sanctioned and disbursed loan in 60 accounts aggregating Rs.104,14 lacs inasmuch as:-

¶135

(1) In 36 accounts, shop/business is non-existent and in 8 accounts, borrowers are not traceable at their given address.

¶136

(2) In 60 accounts, credit needs of borrowers were not properly assessed, as no pre-sanction inspection report is available.

¶137

(3) In 60 accounts, CBD-23 of borrowers and guarantors is not supported by documents for a meaningful assessment of their worth.

¶138

(4) In 4 account, you exceeded your delegated authority and the Competent Authority was not informed.

¶139

(5) In 27 accounts, undue financing was extended to more than one member of the same family for same trade/business unit/shop.

¶140

(6) In 60 accounts, security documents obtained are defective.

¶141

(7) In 2 accounts, withdrawal of loan amount by a 3^rd party unrelated to the borrowers and without the knowledge of the borrowers, was allowed.

¶142

(8) In 60 accounts, proper end use of funds was not ensured, as no post-sanction inspection report is available and in 60 accounts, no bills/receipts are available to show control over loan disbursement.

¶143

(9) In 50 accounts, disbursement was made either by way of cash or by crediting SB A/cs of borrowers instead of paying directing to the suppliers.

¶144

(10) In 60 accounts, insurance of assets is not available.

¶145

(11) In 60 accounts, advance sanctioned was not reported to the Controlling Authority in the monthly statement.

¶146

Out of the total 60 accounts sanctioned and disbursed in the above manner, 49 accounts have turned NPA involving Rs.46.77. The Bank is likely suffer financial loss of Rs.46.77 lacs in these accounts, because of your lapses.

¶147

2) In the aforesaid manner, you failed to discharge your duties diligently and with honesty and faithfulness, which if proved, would amount to breach of Regulation No.20 of Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010.”

¶148

The petitioner has been called upon to participate in the enquiry and accordingly, he has participated in the enquiry. The delinquent

¶149

Page 11 of 17

¶150

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶151

employee has furnished detailed reply denying the allegation, but however, in one of the charges, he has admitted to have committed mistake.

¶152

We, on going through the entire enquiry report have found that the management witnesses have deposed in support of the charge which have also been cross-examined by the appellant.

¶153

This Court needs to refer herein the extract of the order inflicting punishment passed by the disciplinary authority based upon the finding recorded by the enquiry officer:

¶154

“ 6) In the circumstances, the undersigned rejects all the contentions raised by you in your representations on inquiry findings. The inquiry finding has been arrived at on the basis of proper evaluation of evidences on record. It is logical and consistent. The defense contentions have been properly discussed before arriving at conclusion. Hence, the undersigned hereby accepts the inquiry report in totality.

¶155

7) The charges proved against you are quite serious in nature such as extending loans to non-existent businesses, sanctioning the loans without assessing credit needs, improper CBD-23, financing the loan to more than one members of the family for the same business, obtaining defective documents and assets purchased from bank’s loan kept uninsured which violates Bank’s lending norms. You made direct disbursement of the loans to the Borrowers and failed to ensure end use of funds giving scope of diversion of Bank’s fund. You allowed 3^rd party to withdraw loan amount from the account of the Borrower without the knowledge of the Borrowers.

¶156

Looking to this aspect, the Competent Authority is convinced that the major penalty of “Downgrade of your Grade from MMG-II to JMG-I and fitment of your pay at the initial of JMG-I i.e. Rs.23,700/- till you superannuation with cumulative effect” shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby passes the following order.

¶157

Order

¶158

Shri Bharirath Keshri be and is hereby awarded the major penalty of “Downgrade of Scale from MMG-II to JMG-I and fitment of pay at the initial of JMG-I i.e. Rs.23,700/- till superannuation with cumulative effect” under Regulation No.39.1(b) of Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 for the acts of misconduct as enumerated in the charge sheet issued under the cover of memo Ref. No.JGB:HO:IR:2014-15:107 dated 10.09.2014 and held as proved in the disciplinary enquiry.

¶159

8) This order shall take immediate effect.

¶160

9) If you so desire, you may prefer an appeal against this order within

¶161

45 days of the date of receipt of this order. The appeal shall be

¶162

Page 12 of 17

¶163

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶164

addressed to the Chairmn, Jharkhand Gramin Bank and the Appellate Authority in your case.

¶165

10) Receipt of the order shall be acknowledged on the copies thereof.”

¶166

Learned senior counsel for the respondent in response to the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that no adequate and sufficient opportunity has been granted, has referred the minutes of the enquiry proceeding dated 14.07.2015 as referred in the counter affidavit appended to the writ petition at paragraph-19 wherein on query made to the appellant he has submitted that he is not to produce any document or to cross-examine the witnesses. For ready reference, relevant part of paragraph-19 of the counter affidavit is being referred as under:

¶167

“ 19. …

¶168

So far as the Defense witness is concern, the petitioner and his representatives neither demanded nor presented any defense witness in whole departmental proceeding. But in fact it is clear from the Minutes of the Enquiry Proceeding dated 14.07.2015 that when it was asked from DR: do you wish to present any more defence exhibits or present any DWs?” the answer of the same was “Negative” .”

¶169

The fact about providing no adequate and sufficient opportunity is not found placed in any of the application said to be made before the enquiry officer.

¶170

The question herein is that when no such plea was taken before the enquiry officer by making requisition to that effect then how can the appellant be allowed to cast aspersion upon the conduct of the fair enquiry.

¶171

The enquiry will be said to be unfair if even on the basis of the

¶172

requisition to produce document or call upon the witnesses, if has not been acceded to. But there is no reference to that effect and even that is not the case of the appellant rather the submission orally has been made that the inspection report has not been submitted.

¶173

Even accepting that the inspection report has not been provided but question is that who has prevented the appellant to take this ground of

¶174

Page 13 of 17 L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶175

not providing the inspection report by making requisition before the enquiry officer.

¶176

This Court, therefore, is of the view that the ground which is being taken of not providing inspection report cannot be said to be just and proper to show interference with the impugned order.

¶177

Further, in the enquiry report, the enquiry officer has taken into consideration the official discharge of duty of the appellant-writ petitioner in which the loan has been sanctioned against the shop having no existence and in some of the cases, there is no collateral security said to be ensured or even the guarantor having not properly been checked.

¶178

It also requires to refer herein the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the employees working in the financial institutions like the bank are supposed to perform their duty with utmost sincerity and integrity and they are to be treated differently to the other civil servants on the ground that they are dealing with the public money.

¶179

Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar, [(2003) 4 SCC 364 , which reads as hereunder:

¶180

“ 14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1194] it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.”

¶181

Page 14 of 17

¶182

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶183

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in State Bank of India & Ors Vs. S.N. Goyal [(2008) 8 SCC 92] has been pleased to hold at paragraph 41 as under:

¶184

“ 41. At the relevant point of time the respondent was functioning as a Branch Manager. A bank survives on the trust of its clientele and constituents. The position of the Manager of a bank is a matter of great trust. The employees of the bank in particular the Manager are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the bank. Any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds of the bank or its customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. When a borrower makes any payment towards a loan, the Manager of the bank receiving such amount is required to credit it immediately to the borrower's account. If the matter is to be viewed lightly or leniently it will encourage other bank employees to indulge in such activities thereby undermining the entire banking system. The request for reducing the punishment is misconceived and rejected.”

¶185

Further, in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. M Duraisamy reported in (2022) 7 SCC 475 wherein at paragraph the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that there cannot be any leniency and undue sympathy in the matter of punishment awarded to the bankers. For ready reference paragraph 15 and 17 of the judgment reads as under:

¶186

“15. Merely because the respondent employee had worked for 39 years and in those years, there was no punishment imposed and/or that he voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount along with penal interest and therefore there was no loss to the Government/Department cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and substitute the same from removal to that of compulsory retirement. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court have, in fact, considered the nature and gravity of the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer. Therefore, both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

¶187

17. Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee. What about the loss caused to the department by way of goodwill, name and fame of the department and its reliability amongst the public? By such a misconduct/act on the part of the delinquent officer, the reputation of the department had been tarnished. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and to substitute the same to that of compulsory retirement.”

¶188

Page 15 of 17

¶189

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶190

It is, thus, evident that the service rendered by the civilian and the bankers are on two different pedestals as the bankers are to discharge their duty with utmost sincerity. A bank survives on the trust of its clientele and constituents. The position of the Manager of a bank is a matter of great trust. The employees of the bank in particular the Manager are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the bank. Any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds of the bank or its customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment.

¶191

Conclusion:

¶192

This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion and relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India & Ors Vs. S.N. Goyal (supra) and based upon the factual aspect, is of the view that the case of the appellant-writ petitioner is not coming under the fold of the case where the interference is required to be shown.

¶193

Further, since the petitioner was working in bank and as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar (supra) that a bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity as he deals with the money of the depositors and the customers, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the administrative authorities suffers from no error.

¶194

The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the facts in entirety and the scope of judicial review in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, according to our considered view, is correct in not interfering with the orders passed by the administrative authorities as impugned.

¶195

This Court, having discussed the factual aspect and taking into consideration the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has considered the entire aspect of

¶196

Page 16 of 17

¶197

L.P.A. No 410 of 2023

¶198

the matter based upon the legal proposition as referred hereinabove and hence, the impugned order needs no interference.

¶199