IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20010 of 2011

======================================================

1.1.Lav Kumar Singh Son of Late Prem Prakash Singh, Resident of Village-

Dumduma, P.S.- Dauadpur, District- Saran at Chapra, at presently residing at

B-69, Devil Road, Village- Khanpur, deoli, South Delhi 110062.

1.2.Kush Kumar Singh Son of Late Prem Prakash Singh, Resident of Village-

Dumduma, P.S.- Dauadpur, District- Saran at Chapra, at presently residing at

B-69, Devil Road, Village- Khanpur, deoli, South Delhi 110062.

1.3.Goldy Kumari Daughter of Late Prem Prakash Singh, Resident of Village-

Dumduma, P.S.- Dauadpur, District- Saran at Chapra, at presently residing at

B-69, Devil Road, Village- Khanpur, deoli, South Delhi 110062.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The Zonal Manager Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur.

2.The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Siwan.

3.The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Ekma Branch, Saran at Chapra.

4.The Branch Manager-cum-Inquiry Officer, Central Bank of India, Barharia

Branch, Siwan.

5.A.G.M. cum Appellate Authority, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Muzaffarpur.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent Bank: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate

: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate

: Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate

: Ms. Dilkash Khan, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 22-09-2026

Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue writ in the nature of certiorari

for setting aside the administrative

order issued vide Memo No.

RO/HRD/DA/2010-11/381 dated

22.02.2011 under the signature of the

Assistant Regional Manager, Central

Bank of India, Regional Office, Siwan

whereby and whereunder punishment

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

2/44

of dismissed without notice has been

imposed upon the petitioner with an

order that the petitioner would not get

the difference amount of salary and

subsistence allowance which he

already got during the period of

suspension;

(ii) To issue writ in the nature of certiorari

for setting aside the Memo No.

ZO/AA/11-12/142 dated 28.06.2011

issued under the signature of Assistant

General manager Central Bank of

India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur

whereby and whereunder the appeal

preferred by the petitioner has been

disposed of confirming the order of the

disciplinary authority:

(iii) To issue writ in the nature of

mandamus commanding upon the

respondent authorities to reinstate the

petitioner in service with all

consequential benefits.”

3. During pendency of the writ petition, the original writ

petitioner died on 09.04.2012 and thereafter I.A. No.01 of 2023

was filed for substituting the legal heirs of the sole writ petitioner.

Simultaneously, an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.02 of

2023 was also filed for condonation of delay of about 11 years in

filing the substitution petition, since the sole writ petitioner died

on 09.04.2012 and the substitution petition was filed in 2023.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

3/44

4. Vide order dated 20.07.2026, both the Interlocutory

applications i.e. I.A. No.01 of 2023 and I.A. No.02 of 2023 were

allowed. The legal heirs of the sole writ petitioner were substituted

in his place.

BRIEF FACTS

5. The brief facts, which are necessary for adjudication

of the present writ petition, are that while the deceased petitioner

was posted as Head Cashier in the Central Bank of India, Ekma

Branch, Chapra, Saran, he was placed under suspension vide

Memo No. RO/HRD/DAD/08-09/878 dated 18.09.2008, issued

under the signature of the Regional Manager, Central Bank of

India, Regional Office, Siwan, on account of fraudulent

withdrawal of amounts from saving account of deceased customers

of Ekma Branch. In the said order dated 18.09.2008, it was

directed that for the first three months, the deceased petitioner

would get one third of the pay and other allowances, which he

would have got, but for the suspension and thereafter one half of

the pay and allowance would be paid to him and after expiry of

one year of suspension, full pay and allowances would be payable

to him, if the enquiry is not delayed for the reasons attributable to

the deceased-petitioner. An explanation was sought for by the

Regional Manager of the Bank vide Memo No. RO/DAD/08-09/28

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

4/44

dated 13.11.2008 with regard to certain charges/illegality

committed by the deceased petitioner, while posted as Head

Cashier in the Bank. Subsequent thereto, another memo bearing

memo no. RO/DAD/08-09/60 dated 14.01.2009 was issued by the

Regional Manager of the Bank, by which charge memo/charge-

sheet was served upon the deceased petitioner. Altogether, 7

charges (which were part of the earlier memo dated 13.11.2008)

were levelled against him.

6. It is the case of the deceased petitioner that for the

same set of allegations, one criminal case bearing Ekma P.S. Case

No.90 of 2008 was instituted against him under different sections

of the Indian Penal Code. He was granted the privilege of

anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated

21.05.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No.2628 of 2009. The

departmental proceeding initiated against the deceased-petitioner,

proceeded, however no subsistence allowance was paid to him.

Therefore, he submitted a request before the Branch Manager,

Ekma branch on 07.04.2009 for payment of subsistence allowance,

in terms of letter dated 18.09.2008. During course of enquiry, the

deceased petitioner submitted an application on 01.06.2009,

stating therein that he will not be able to appear in the proceeding

on 05.06.2009, on account of his ailment and he also requested the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

5/44

enquiry officer to provide relevant documents and evidences

related to the departmental proceeding. Since the departmental

proceeding was not concluded within the period of one year, from

the date of suspension of the deceased petitioner, he submitted an

application before the Regional Manager of the Bank on

13.01.2010, with a request to make payment of full salary and

allowance to him. On the request made by him, the Regional

Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority vide memo dated 09.10.2009

informed him that even after expiry of one year, he would not be

entitled to get full salary, since the delay in conclusion of the

departmental proceeding has occurred on account of non-

cooperation of him. Being aggrieved with the decision of the

Disciplinary Authority dated 09.10.2009, the deceased petitioner

filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.5572 of 2010 before this

Hon’ble Court. The writ petition filed by him was disposed of by

an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court vide order dated

13.04.2010, whereby the order dated 09.10.2009, issued by the

Regional Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority of the Bank was set

aside and a direction was issued to the disciplinary authority to

pass fresh orders in accordance with law, indicating the reasons as

to why the deceased petitioner will be not paid full salary, after

completion of one year from the date of suspension. He submitted

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

6/44

a representation before the disciplinary authority on 23.04.2010,

along with a copy of the order dated 13.04.2010 and requested him

to make payment of full salary.

7. It is further case of the deceased petitioner that he

submitted an application before the Regional Manager of the Bank

on 24.04.2010, to appoint any other person as the enquiry officer,

since he was apprehending that he would not get justice from the

enquiry officer in the departmental enquiry. Subsequently, he

submitted another application before the enquiry officer on

09.05.2010, with a request to handover to him the documents

asked for by him from serial no.1 to serial no.9, so that he can be

able to effectively defend himself in the departmental enquiry. The

Regional Manager of the Bank vide his Memo No.141 dated

12.05.2010, directed the enquiry officer to follow the Central

Office Circular dated 29.04.2009 on disciplinary action procedure

and to allow the deceased petitioner (CSE) to present the relevant

documents in his defence and he further directed/instructed the

enquiry officer to complete the departmental enquiry as soon as

possible.

8. It is further case of the deceased petitioner that the

documents asked for by him were vital documents, on the basis of

which he could prove his innocence, were not provided to him and

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

7/44

instead the letter dated 12.05.2010 was issued with a view to

confuse the enquiry officer. Vide letter dated 24.05.2010, issued

under the signature of the Regional Manager of the Bank, the

deceased petitioner was informed that the delay in the

departmental proceeding has been caused by him and therefore, he

is not entitled for salary. It was directed that he would get the

subsistence allowance only and even in the said letter, no whisper

was there with regard to non-supply of the documents to the

deceased petitioner. Left with no other option, he again preferred

C.W.J.C. No.9903 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court, with a

prayer to supply relevant documents, as asked for by the deceased

petitioner. Vide order dated 30.06.2010 passed by an Hon’ble

Single Judge of this Court, the learned senior counsel for the bank

was directed to seek instructions as to why the account number,

from which the fraudulent withdrawal is alleged at the instance of

the deceased petitioner, is not furnished to him, along with the

documents concerning the departmental proceeding taken against

the then Branch Manager Shri Ram Charan Singh, Accountant Shri

Kamlesh Kumar and Sub-Accountant Shri Pramod Kumar Sinha.

The learned senior counsel for the Bank was further directed to

seek instruction from the Bank as to why the date, on which the

account became dead, be not furnished to the deceased petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

8/44

The matter was directed to be listed on 06.07.2010 and it was

further directed that until 06.07.2010, the witnesses be not

examined ex-parte. When the matter was again heard on

06.07.2010, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

Bank informed this Hon’ble court that the departmental

proceeding against the deceased petitioner was taken for ex-parte

hearing on 22.05.2010, in compliance of the notice of the enquiry

officer dated 19.05.2010. The said notice was received by the

deceased petitioner on 19.05.2010 itself and since the delinquent

did not choose to appear on 22.05.2010, the proceeding was closed

with a direction to the deceased petitioner to file his written

submission. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the deceased

petitioner was disposed of with a direction to him to challenge the

findings contained in the enquiry report, if the findings are

recorded against him, by raising the submissions, which have been

raised in the writ petition, before the disciplinary authority by

filing second show cause reply raising submissions that the

findings have been recorded without giving him the relevant

documents, as claimed by him in compliance of the directions of

the disciplinary authority contained in letter dated 12.05.2010 as

also the relevant documents/materials concerning Ram Charan

Singh, Kamlesh Kumar and Pramod Kumar Sinha. It was directed

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

9/44

that the second show cause reply filed by the deceased petitioner

would be considered in accordance with law. The enquiry officer,

after conducting the departmental enquiry, submitted his report

before the disciplinary authority on 02.08.2010, whereby he found

the charges levelled against the deceased petitioner to be proved.

Immediately thereafter, he submitted an application before the

Assistant General Manager of the Bank on 01.09.2010, whereby it

was informed that vide order dated 12.05.2010, the Assistant

General Manager had directed the enquiry officer to provide the 9

documents, as asked for by the deceased petitioner. However, the

said documents were not provided to him. Second show cause

notice was issued to the deceased petitioner vide Letter No.228

dated 27.09.2010, issued under the signature of the disciplinary

authority/Regional Manager of the Bank. Along with the second

show cause notice dated 27.09.2010, the enquiry report dated

02.08.2010 was also forwarded to him. In compliance thereof, the

deceased petitioner submitted his reply on 18.10.2010 and he

again requested the authority to provide the documents, which

were directed to be provided to him vide letter dated 12.05.2010.

The enquiry officer vide his Letter No.294 dated 20.11.2010

informed the deceased petitioner that all the relevant documents

were provided to him during course of departmental enquiry and

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

10/44

the other documents, which were not provided to him, were

irrelevant documents and the same has already been recorded,

during course of enquiry in the proceeding. Immediately thereafter,

vide letter dated 06.12.2010, the deceased petitioner requested the

disciplinary authority to provide the documents asked for by him,

since the charges levelled against him are with respect to

committing forgery and therefore, the documents asked for by him

are relevant documents. He further informed the disciplinary

authority that he had already requested the enquiry officer vide his

letter dated 12.05.2010 to provide the documents asked for by him,

however despite his request, the same has not been provided. Since

the deceased petitioner was not submitting his reply to the second

show cause notice, the disciplinary authority vide letter no.350

dated 12.01.2011 sent the proposed final order dated 12.01.2011 to

him through the Branch Manager of Ekma Branch. Upon receipt

of the letter dated 12.01.2011, the deceased petitioner again

requested the Regional Manager of the Bank on 24.01.2011 to

provide the documents asked for by him, which contained amongst

others things, the enquiry report and the memo of charge against

Ram Charan Singh, Kamlesh Kumar and Pramod Kumar Sinha.

He informed the disciplinary authority that non supply of the

documents is in complete violation of the order passed by this

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

11/44

Hon’ble Court and he requested the disciplinary authority to

provide the said documents to him at the earliest.

9. It is further case of the deceased petitioner that

02.02.2011 was the date fixed for hearing before the disciplinary

authority, in which the he personally appeared. He again made a

request before the disciplinary authority to provide the desired

documents asked by him, by filing a written application. The

written application submitted by the deceased petitioner was taken

to be the written submission against the proposed punishment, by

the disciplinary authority, which is evident from his order under

punishment.

10. It is further case of the deceased petitioner that he

never submitted any written submission before the enquiry officer

or before the disciplinary authority, since he was not in a position

to do so, in absence of the supply of the documents asked for by

him. Finally, by the impugned order contained in Memo No.

RO/HRD/DA/2010-11/380 dated 22.02.2011, the deceased

petitioner was imposed punishment of dismissal from service,

without notice under Clause- 6 (a) of the Memorandum of

Settlement of Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen dated

10.04.2002. In the said order of punishment dated 22.02.2011, it

was further ordered that the deceased petitioner will not be entitled

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

12/44

to get the difference amount of salary and the subsistence

allowance, which he has already been paid during the period of

suspension. Being aggrieved with the order of punishment dated

22.02.2011, the deceased petitioner preferred statutory appeal

before the Zonal Manager-Cum-Appellate Authority of the Bank,

wherein he again took a plea that the documents asked for by him

were not supplied to him and he also informed the appellate

authority that he was not granted opportunity to submit his defence

and further informed that the quantum of punishment is

disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. He also took a

plea that the order of punishment was not a reasoned order. The

deceased petitioner was heard by the appellate authority on

02.06.2011, wherein he informed the appellate authority that

neither the enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority provided

the documents asked for by him and the authorities even ignored

the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court.

11. It is further case of the deceased petitioner that

though the appellate authority found that the documents asked for

by him were denied by the enquiry officer, by stating the same to

be irrelevant and he also recorded the grounds taken by the

deceased petitioner that the documents were not provided to him

and he kept on requesting for the same, however the appellate

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

13/44

authority erroneously held that the enquiry officer is the competent

authority to decide what documentary evidence are relevant or

having importance with the case and proceeded to uphold the order

passed by the disciplinary authority vide Memo No. 20/AA/11-

12/142 dated 28.06.2011.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

12. The learned counsel for the substituted petitioners

submits that while the father of the petitioners was posted as Head

Cashier in the Central Bank of India at Ekma Branch, he was

placed under suspension vide memo dated 18.09.2008. Memo of

charge was issued, however no documents, which were asked for

by the father of the petitioners, were supplied to him. The father of

the petitioners was never supplied the documents in support of the

charge, either with the memo of charge or with the charge-sheet.

Even the list of witnesses was not provided. Despite repeated

request of their father, the authorities of the bank kept mum and

proceeded with the departmental enquiry. Even after passing of the

order by this Hon’ble Court, the documents were never supplied to

the father of the petitioners. In absence of the relevant documents,

which were vital to contradict the charges levelled against the

delinquent, no written submission was filed. The respondent Bank

considered the case, in absence of any written submission by their

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

14/44

father and proceeded to award punishment against him ex-parte.

He submits that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted

against the father of the petitioners with bias and with

predetermined mind. It would be apparent from the reasons given

by the disciplinary authority, as well as the enquiry officer that the

most relevant documents to substantiate the charges against the

delinquent were declared to be irrelevant. Since, the charges

against the delinquent were with regard to fraudulent withdrawal

of amounts from the account of the deceased persons during

21.04.2008 to 12.09.2008, therefore, the documents, which were

asked for by the delinquent, related to the said charge were

relevant, however the same were never provided to him. In

absence of the evidence with regard to closure/non-closure of the

accounts of the persons said to be deceased, the father of the

petitioners was not in a position to contradict the charges levelled

against him. The enquiry report does not even whisper that the

alleged withdrawals were made from the closed accounts. The

enquiry officer simply held that the withdrawal were made from

the account of the dead person, but did not enter into the issue as

to whether there was any death certificate with the records of the

Bank and whether the accounts were closed on the date or even

prior to the date, on which the alleged withdrawals were made.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

15/44

The documents, which were the most important documents to

bring home the charges against the delinquent, were declared to be

irrelevant. Further, neither the disciplinary authority nor the

appellate authority paid any heed to the request made by the

delinquent for supply of the relevant documents, which were

germane in nature to the issue.

13. The learned counsel for the substituted petitioners

further submits that their father came to know that for almost

identical charges, Ram Charan Singh, Kamlesh Kumar and

Pramod Kumar Sinha were also proceeded departmentally,

however they were exonerated from the charges levelled against

them. When their father requested the authorities of the Bank to at

least provide him the charges, which were levelled against the said

three persons and the enquiry report submitted in the proceeding

against them, he was informed that the said documents are

irrelevant. The said Ram Charan Singh was made a witness on

behalf of the Bank in the departmental proceeding, conducted

against the father of the petitioners.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the delinquent did not give any reply during course of entire

departmental proceeding or did not even participate in the

proceeding, since he was not provided with the relevant

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

16/44

documents. He further submits that the criminal case, which was

lodged against the delinquent, is still pending for adjudication.

One similarly situated person, namely, Ravi Kumar was also

proceeded with departmentally, along with the deceased petitioner.

He also assailed the order of punishment by filing C.W.J.C.

No.7618 of 2012. An Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court vide

letter dated 23.04.2024 has been pleased to remit back the matter

to the respondent Bank for proceeding afresh. He submits that

from perusal of the enquiry report, it would transpire that the

enquiry officer on his own, proceeded to hold that the 9

documents, which were asked for by the delinquent, were

irrelevant documents and cannot be provided to him.

15. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to and

relies upon a judgment dated 04.08.2026 passed in C.W.J.C. No.

13691 of 2016 (Rubi Shankar & Ors. versus the State of Bihar &

Ors), wherein this Hon’ble Court in paragraph no.13 has held as

follows:-

“13. Having considered the rival submissions and

after going through the record, it appears

that the deceased petitioner was

apprehended while accepting bribe of Rs.

15,000/-, for which a vigilance case bearing

Vigilance P.S. Case No. 58 of 2012 was

instituted under different Sections of the

Prevention of Corruption Act. The deceased

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

17/44

petitioner was taken into custody and later

on was released on bail by this Hon’ble

Court on 15.01.2013. He was put under

suspension and thereafter he was

departmentally proceeded, for which memo

of charge was issued. Along with the memo

of charge, list of documents and list of

witnesses were given to him. The deceased

petitioner kept on asking for the documents

to be relied upon by the department during

course of departmental enquiry and

witnesses to be relied upon during course of

departmental enquiry. Ultimately, he

submitted his reply before the Enquiry

Officer on 05.03.2014. The Enquiry Officer,

after considering the reply submitted by the

deceased petitioner, proceeded to prove the

charges leveled against him, only on the

basis of the vigilance case lodged against

him. It appears from Enquiry Report that

during course of enquiry, not even a single

document or witness was produced/submitted

by the Presenting Officer. Even he did not

submit his written

submission/opinion/comment before the

Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, by

assuming the role of the Presenting Officer,

himself went on to prove the charges leveled

against the deceased petitioner and found

him guilty of accepting bribe. The

Disciplinary Authority, while issuing second

show-cause notice to the deceased petitioner

on 04.04.2014, had already decided to

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

18/44

dismiss the petitioner from service, since in

the second show-cause notice itself, he asked

the petitioner to give his reply that, why he

be not dismissed from service. The

Disciplinary Authority, since he had already

decided to dismiss the deceased petitioner

from service, by the impugned order

contained in memo no. 363 dated

30.05.2014, proceeded to dismiss the him

from service. Even the Appellate Authority,

without even considering the grounds taken

by the deceased petitioner in his memo of

appeal preferred by him vide memo no. 88

dated 12.01.2016, proceeded to reject the

appeal. It appears from the record that even

the complainant, on whose complaint the

vigilance case was lodged against the

deceased petitioner, was not examined during

course of departmental enquiry and the

deceased petitioner was also denied an

opportunity to produce defence witnesses or

to cross-examine the witnesses, since no

witnesses were examined during course of

enquiry. The same is in violation of Rule

17(14) of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.

It

is settled law that even if departmental

proceeding is proceeded with ex-parte, the

document has to be proved by a witness, if

the delinquent does not plead guilty, then

witnesses had to be examined to prove the

charges leveled against the delinquent and

the document and the witness would have to

be tendered for cross-examination.

In the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

19/44

present case, no such effort has been made

by the Enquiry Officer and he submitted his

Enquiry Report without following the due

process of law.”

16. The learned counsel for the petitioners further refers

to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India reported in 2010 (2) SCC 772 (State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj

Kumar Sinha), wherein in paragraph nos.27, 28 and 30, it has

been held as follows:-

“27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule

shows that when the respondent had failed to

submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it

was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix

a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is

only in a case when the government servant

despite notice of the date fixed failed to

appear that the inquiry officer can proceed

with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such

circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry

officer to record the statement of witnesses

mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the

government servant is absent, he would

clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination

of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to

establish the charges the Department is

required to produce the necessary evidence

before the inquiry officer. This is so as to

avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has

acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge.

28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial

authority is in the position of an independent

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

20/44

adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a

representative of the department/disciplinary

authority/Government. His function is to

examine the evidence presented by the

Department, even in the absence of the

delinquent official to see as to whether the

unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that

the charges are proved. In the present case

the aforesaid procedure has not been

observed. Since no oral evidence has been

examined the documents have not been

proved, and could not have been taken into

consideration to conclude that the charges

have been proved against the respondents.

30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted

against the government servant it cannot be

treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry

proceedings also cannot be conducted with a

closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be

wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice

are required to be observed to ensure not

only that justice is done but is manifestly

seen to be done. The object of rules of

natural justice is to ensure that a government

servant is treated fairly in proceedings which

may culminate in imposition of punishment

including dismissal/removal from service.”

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT BANK

17. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the Bank

submits that as per Clause 19.12 of the Bipartite Settlement, no list

of documents or list of witnesses are required to be given. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

21/44

documents, which were produced by the Bank during enquiry were

perused by the delinquent and it is not the case of the petitioners

that the documents, which the delinquent was asking for, were

relied by the presenting officer or the enquiry officer during course

of the departmental enquiry. He further submits that the

documents, which were produced by the management, were

perused by the delinquent and he was given opportunity by the

enquiry officer to file his reply, however he refused to do so. He

submits that the charges levelled against the delinquent were

serious in nature, relating to withdrawal of amount from

inoperative deceased accounts. He submits that the enquiry report

was duly served upon the delinquent and his request for providing

him the documents, were duly considered by the authorities

concerned. He submits that the enquiry officer followed all the

procedure prescribed for conducting departmental enquiry and the

delinquent was granted opportunity to prove his innocence by

producing evidence/reply in his favour. The daily order-sheet was

provided to the delinquent. Even the written statement, which was

produced by the management, was provided to him and he was

provided opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, however he

refused to do so and continuously remained absent in the

departmental proceeding.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

22/44

18. The learned senior counsel for the Bank further

submits that prior to passing the impugned order of punishment,

the delinquent was directed to appear in person before the

disciplinary authority. He appeared before the disciplinary

authority and he was again given an opportunity to submit his

written statement, which he did not do and finally the order of

punishment was passed. Before passing the order of punishment,

the delinquent was directed to make comment on the proposed

order of punishment, however he again refused to do so. He

submits that so far, the submission of the petitioners to the effect,

that the proceeding vitiated on account of not providing the list of

documents and witnesses, along with the charge memo is

concerned, the departmental proceeding was conducted in terms of

Clause 19.12 of Bipartite Settlement, which does not provide that

the charge-sheet must contain the list of witnesses or list of

documents. He submits that the submission of the petitioners that

it is required, as per Clause 19.10 of the Bipartite Settlement, is

not tenable, since Clause 19.10 and 19.12 of the settlement

operates in mutually exclusive area. The procedure for conducting

the departmental proceeding for award staff i.e. clerk etc. are

governed by Clause 19.12 of the Bipartite Settlement, whereas

Clause 19.10 of the settlement deals with certain circumstances,

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

23/44

which only provides for entering in book kept specifically for the

purposes, the date on which the proceeding was held, the name of

the employee proceeded against, the charge or the charges, the

evidences on which they are based, the explanation and the

evidence, if any tendered by the said employee, the findings or

findings with ground on which they are based and the order passed

shall be recorded with sufficient fullness, as clearly as possible and

such record of the proceedings shall be signed by the officer, who

holds them, after which a copy of such records shall be furnished

to the employees concerned, if so requested by him in writing. He

submits that Clause 19.10 is only for record keeping of the

proceedings/charge-sheet/evidence/findings and the orders passed

by the officer, who held them under certain circumstances

mentioned therein. It does not/cannot be interpreted to mean that

the charge-sheet must contain list of witnesses or documents, if the

employee is proceeded in terms of clause 19.12.

19. The learned senior counsel for the Bank next submits

that so far, the submission of the delinquent to the effect that the

proceeding vitiated on account of non-supply of the documents

asked for by him is concerned, the same is not tenable. All the

documents relied upon by the management during the proceeding

were allowed to be inspected by the delinquent and then were

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

24/44

marked as exhibits. Copies of the exhibits were provided to the

defence. The documents asked for were not supplied, as the same

were denied by the enquiry officer on the ground that the relevant

documents, were already marked as exhibits and other documents,

were irrelevant, therefore the same were not provided. He submits

that only relevant documents are to be supplied and not each and

every document, asked for by the delinquent officer/employee has

to be supplied to him.

20. To support his above mentioned contention, the

learned senior counsel for the Bank refers to and relies upon a

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1996

(5) SCC 474 (State of Tamil Nadu versus Thiru K.V. Perumal

and Ors.), wherein in paragraph no.4, it has been held as follows:-

“4. After hearing the counsel for the parties we

find that grounds 1, 2 and 4 are

unsustainable in law and on facts of the

case. We need not deal with grounds 1

and 2 inasmuch as Shri Venkatramani, the

learned counsel for the respondent, did

not seek to support the said grounds. Be

that as it may, we have perused the memo

of charges and we do not find any

vagueness in the charges. Similarly the

second ground given by the Tribunal

appears to be based upon a mistake as to

the identity of the person appointed as the

inquiry officer. So far as the fourth

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

25/44

ground is concerned, it has been

repeatedly held by this Court that it is not

the province of the Tribunal to go into the

truth or otherwise of the charges and that

the Tribunal is not an appellate authority

over the departmental authorities.

Accordingly, the Tribunal must be held to

have exceeded its jurisdiction in entering

upon a discussion whether the charges

are established on the material available.

The fourth ground also thus disappears.

Now remains only the third ground, viz.,

the non-furnishing of the documents

asked for by the respondent. The Tribunal

seems to be under the impression that the

inquiry officer/disciplinary authority is

bound to supply each and every document

that may be asked for by the delinquent

officer/employee. It is wrong there. Their

duty is only to supply relevant documents

and not each and every document asked

for by the delinquent officer/employee. In

this case the respondent had asked for

certain documents. The Registrar, to

whom the request was made, called upon

him to specify the relevance of each and

every document asked for by him. It is not

brought to our notice that the respondent

did so. The Tribunal too has not gone into

the question nor has it expressed any

opinion whether the documents asked for

were indeed relevant and whether their

non-supply has prejudiced the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

26/44

respondent's case. The test to be applied

in this behalf has been set out by this

Court in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.

Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364: 1996 SCC

(L&S) 717: (1996) 3 Scale 202]. It was

the duty of the respondent to point out

how each and every document was

relevant to the charges or to the enquiry

being held against him and whether and

how their non-supply has prejudiced his

case. Equally, it is the duty of the

Tribunal to record a finding whether any

relevant documents were not supplied and

whether such non-supply has prejudiced

the defendant's case. Since this has not

been done by the Tribunal in this matter,

it has to go back for a rehearing.”

21. The learned senior counsel for the Bank further

refers to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India reported in 2006 (3) SCC 150 (Syndicate Bank & Ors. v.

Venkatesh Gururao Kurati), wherein in paragraph no.7 & 18 it

has been held as follows:-

“7. In the writ appeal, the learned Division

Bench framed the following issues:

(i) Whether charges framed against the

appellant delinquent officer are vague?

(ii) Whether non-supply of the documents

sought by the appellant vitiated the

enquiry and the action of the

management of the respondent Bank in

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

27/44

removing the appellant from service is

a disciplinary measure?

(iii) Whether placing reliance on statements

previously recorded by CBI by the

enquiry officer has vitiated the

enquiry?

(iv) Whether the findings of fact recorded by

the enquiry officer are perverse for

want of legal evidence?

18. In our view, non-supply of documents on

which the enquiry officer does not rely

during the course of enquiry does not

create any prejudice to the delinquent. It

is only those documents, which are relied

upon by the enquiry officer to arrive at

his conclusion, the non-supply of which

would cause prejudice, being violative of

principles of natural justice. Even then,

the non-supply of those documents

prejudice the case of the delinquent

officer must be established by the

delinquent officer. It is well-settled law

that the doctrine of principles of natural

justice are not embodied rules. It cannot

be put in a straitjacket formula. It

depends upon the facts and circumstances

of each case. To sustain the allegation of

violation of principles of natural justice,

one must establish that prejudice has

been caused to him for non-observance of

principles of natural justice.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

28/44

22. The learned senior counsel for the Bank further

submits that considering the nature of charges proved and the fact

that the delinquent is an employee of the Bank, the penalty

imposed is justified and is not disproportionate to the gravity of

the offence. He finally submits that since the delinquent did not

participate in the departmental proceeding and he did not submit

his reply, either before the enquiry officer or to the second show

cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, the bank got no

other option, but to proceed with the enquiry ex-parte. During the

ex-parte enquiry, witnesses were duly examined by the enquiry

officer and the delinquent was given opportunity to cross-examine

the witnesses, however he refused to do so, therefore, the order of

punishment passed against the delinquent cannot be faulted with

on account of any procedural irregularity.

CONSIDERATION

23. Having considered the rival submissions and after

going through the records, it appears that while the deceased

petitioner was posted as Head Cashier in the Central Bank of India

at Ekma Branch, he was put under suspension on 18.09.2008, on

account of fraudulent withdrawals of amount from savings bank

accounts of some of the deceased customers in the Branch. An

explanation was sought for by the Regional Manager of the Bank

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

29/44

on 13.11.2008 with regard to certain charges/illegality committed

by the delinquent. Altogether 7 charges were levelled against him

vide Memo dated 14.01.2009. For the same set of charges, one

criminal case bearing Ekma P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 was also

instituted against him under different Sections of the Indian Penal

Code. He was granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated

21.05.2009. Although, the departmental proceeding against the

delinquent proceeded, however no subsistence allowance was paid

to him, therefore he submitted a request before the concerned

authority on 07.04.2009, however the same was not paid to him on

the ground that the delay in departmental proceeding is attributable

upon him, therefore, the same was denied. The delinquent moved

before this Hon’ble Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.5572 of 2010,

whereby the decision of the disciplinary authority with regard to

non-payment of subsistence allowance/salary to him was assailed.

Vide order dated 13.04.2010, an Hon’ble Single Judge of this

Court set aside the order of the disciplinary authority dated

09.10.2009, whereby the full salary to the delinquent was denied.

Again a representation was submitted on 23.04.2010, along with a

copy of the order dated 13.04.2010. During course of the

departmental enquiry, the delinquent submitted a letter dated

24.04.2010 to appoint any other enquiry officer, since it was his

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

30/44

apprehension that he would not get justice form the enquiry officer

in the departmental enquiry and subsequently one another letter

was submitted by him on 09.05.2010, with a request to hand over

to him certain documents asked for by him from serial nos.1 to 9

of the letter, so that he can be able to defend himself effectively.

All the relevant documents, which were relied upon by the

Bank/presenting officer, during course of departmental enquiry

were provided to him, however the documents which were asked

for by the delinquent were not provided to him, on the ground that

the same were not relevant documents. The delinquent kept on

asking for the same documents time and again and when the same

was not provided to him, then he filed a writ petition bearing

C.W.J.C. No.9903 of 2010. The writ petition was heard on

30.06.2010 and an interim order was passed, however during

pendency of the writ petition, the Bank informed the Hon’ble

Single Judge that the departmental proceeding against the

delinquent was taken for ex-parte hearing on 22.05.2010, in terms

of the notice of the enquiry officer dated 19.05.2010. It was

informed to this Hon’ble Court that the delinquent received the

notice on 19.05.2010 itself and since he did not choose to appear

on 22.05.2010, the proceeding was closed with a direction to the

delinquent to file his written submission. The writ petition filed by

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

31/44

the delinquent was disposed of vide order dated 06.07.2010, with a

direction to the delinquent to challenge the findings contained in

the enquiry report, if the findings are recorded against him, by

raising the submissions, which have been raised in the writ

petition, before the disciplinary authority by filing the second

show cause reply, raising submissions that the findings have been

recorded without giving him the relevant documents, as claimed

by him in compliance of the direction of the disciplinary authority

contained in letter dated 12.05.2010 as also the relevant

document/material concerning three other employees. The

disciplinary authority was directed to consider the reply to the

second show cause notice filed by the delinquent, before passing

the final order. The enquiry officer submitted his report, after

conducting the enquiry on 02.08.2010, whereby the charges

levelled against the delinquent were found to be proved. Again, an

application was submitted by the delinquent on 01.09.2010,

whereby it was informed that vide order dated 12.05.2010, the

Assistant General Manager had directed the enquiry officer to

provide the nine documents, which were asked for by the

delinquent. It was informed that the said documents were never

provided to him. After submission of the enquiry report, the

disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

32/44

delinquent on 27.09.2010. Along with the second show cause

notice, the enquiry report was also forwarded and the delinquent

submitted his reply on 18.10.2010, wherein he again requested the

disciplinary authority to provide him the documents, which were

directed to be provided vide order dated 12.05.2010. It was

informed to the delinquent vide letter dated 20.11.2010 by the

enquiry officer that all the relevant documents were provided to

him during course of departmental enquiry and the documents,

which were not provided to him, were irrelevant documents and

the same has also been recorded in the order-sheet, during course

of enquiry. Immediately thereafter, on 06.12.2010 the delinquent

requested the disciplinary authority to provide the documents

asked for by him, since the charges levelled against him were with

respect to committing forgery, and therefore the documents asked

for by him are relevant documents. Despite repeated requests made

by the disciplinary authority, the delinquent was not submitting his

reply to the second show cause notice, therefore, the disciplinary

authority vide his letter dated 12.01.2011 sent the proposed final

order dated 12.01.2011 to the delinquent, for his comments. The

delinquent again requested the Regional Manager of the Bank on

24.01.2011 to provide the documents, which were asked for by

him. The disciplinary authority fixed 02.02.2011 as the date for

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

33/44

hearing the delinquent and on the said date although, he appeared,

however, he again requested the disciplinary authority for

providing him the said documents. He never submitted any written

submission before the enquiry officer or before the disciplinary

authority, since the documents asked for by him were not being

provided, therefore he submitted that he is not in a position to

submit his written reply. Finally, vide order dated 22.02.2011,

punishment of dismissal from service was imposed against the

delinquent. Being aggrieved with the order of punishment dated

22.02.2011, the delinquent preferred statutory appeal before the

Appellate Authority, wherein again he requested for providing him

the documents and he took a plea that the documents were not

provided to him. The appellate authority heard the delinquent on

02.06.2011, and thereafter by recording the reasons for rejecting

his appeal, proceeded to reject the appeal filed by the delinquent

vide his order dated 28.06.2011. It appears that despite being given

opportunity, the delinquent never submitted his written reply

before the enquiry officer. He did not participate in the

departmental enquiry and the enquiry officer proceeded in the

departmental enquiry ex-parte. During course of enquiry,

witnesses were examined and an opportunity was granted to the

delinquent to cross-examine them, however he did not cross

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

34/44

examine any of the witnesses and he kept on asking for the

documents, which were not provided to him on account of being

irrelevant. From perusal of the enquiry report, it would transpire

that during course of examination of the witnesses, all the

witnesses have supported the charges levelled against the

delinquent and the enquiry officer found all the seven charges

levelled against him to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

After submission of the enquiry report, again second show cause

notice was issued to him, however he again refused to file any

written reply/show cause reply before the disciplinary authority.

He filed a letter, wherein he again asked for the documents, which

in his view were relevant documents. It appears from the enquiry

report that during course of enquiry, the documents, so sought for

by the delinquent were never relied upon by the enquiry officer

and the documents, which were relied upon by the enquiry

officer/presenting officer during course of enquiry, were duly

provided to the delinquent.

24. So far the judgment relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha

(supra) is concerned, the same is related to a departmental enquiry

conducted against an employee in terms of the CCA Rules. In the

present case, the matter relates to termination of an employee of

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

35/44

bank and in the matter of departmental enquiry in bank, the

proceedings are conducted through the Bank Rules/Bipartite

Settlement. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards

of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors

and the customers and every officer/employee of the bank is

required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the bank

and to discharge the duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion

and diligence and do nothing, which is unbecoming of the Bank

officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the

function of every officer/employee of the Bank. Therefore, the

judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is

not applicable in the present case. So far, as the judgment relied

upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Rubi

Shankar and others (supra) is concerned, wherein also the matter

related to disciplinary proceeding against a Class-III employee,

who was attached in the office of the District Programme Officer,

Planning and Accounts, in the district of Arwal and the

departmental proceeding therein was initiated in terms of the Bihar

CCA Rules, 2005. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Rubi

Shankar and others (supra) will also be not applicable in the case

of the delinquent.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

36/44

25. It is not in dispute that all the seven charges against

the delinquent were found to be proved and he did not participate

in the departmental enquiry, which was held ex-parte and in the

said enquiry, the presenting officer presented the witnesses, whose

statement was recorded, however the delinquent did not cross-

examine them. Therefore, it cannot be said that the enquiry, which

was conducted ex-parte, was in violation of the rules and

regulations. Opportunity was given to the delinquent at every

stage, either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority,

however he choose not to participate in the same and did not even

file any written submission, therefore it cannot be said that the

enquiry conducted against the delinquent was not in accordance

with law. So far, the judgment relied upon by the learned senior

counsel for the Bank is concerned, this Court is in total agreement

that a bank officer is required to exercise high standard of honesty

and integrity, since he deals with the money of the depositors and

the customers. The charges against the delinquent were of

fraudulently withdrawing money from the accounts of the

customers, who were dead and therefore it amounts to forgery,

cheating and corruption and misrepresentation.

26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case

reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1109 (Surekha Domaji Bele

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

37/44

Versus Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL), in

paragraph nos. 106-110 has held as follows:-

“106. Dismissal from service is the severest form

of penalty which can be inflicted on a

delinquent employee in service

jurisprudence. It brings the relationship of

employer and employee to an end

permanently, and ordinarily deprives the

employee of the incidents of past service,

including retiral benefits. It does not lead

merely to the loss of the existing source of

income for the employee but also for the

dependent family members. Thus, it will

have a devastating effect not only on the

dismissed employee but also on all those

who are dependent on the employee.

Because of the severity of its impact not only

on the employee but also to his dependents,

the disciplinary authority must be very

careful in seeking to impose the severest

form of punishment of dismissal.

It further carries consequences beyond

immediate cessation of employment. It

leaves a permanent stigma on the service

record of the employee concerned, and may

impair future employment prospects,

particularly in public employment, statutory

bodies, public sector undertakings and other

regulated establishments where antecedents

and service record are material. For this

reason, dismissal must remain reserved for

cases where the misconduct is of the most

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

38/44

serious nature where elements of synthetic

consideration would be undesirable and

inappropriate.

107. The misconduct found proved against the

Appellant relates to indiscipline,

insubordination, and the consequent

tampering with documents. We are not

minimizing the importance of discipline in

an office establishment. However, the

material presently noticed does not show

corruption, illegal gratification, moral

turpitude, misappropriation of funds, proved

pecuniary loss to the employer, public

scandal, or conduct bringing the institution

into public disrepute. The allegations

substantially appear to arise out of internal

office functioning and service-related

conflict and did not play out in the public

domain.

108. In the present case, we do not find that the

competent authority undertook such an

exercise of evaluating various relevant

factors. The order does not reflect

consideration of the Appellant's long

service, past record, age, absence or

presence of dishonesty, or absence or

presence of actual loss as also commended

by the Labour Court.

109. Even where the Regulations include

dismissal as one of the permissible

punishments for acts of misconduct, the

authority is not relieved of its duty to

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

39/44

consider all relevant factors to see whether

the facts of the case truly warrant the most

extreme form of penalty. The mere fact that a

proved act falls within the broad category of

“misconduct” under the Regulations does

not mean that dismissal must follow as a

matter of course.

110. Dismissal is ordinarily justified where the

misconduct is of such gravity that

continuance of the employee would be

wholly incompatible with discipline, trust or

institutional functioning. Cases involving

corruption, illegal gratification, moral

turpitude, misappropriation, acts causing

substantial loss to the employer, or conduct

showing complete unfitness for continued

service stand on a different footing.

However, where the misconduct does not

involve corruption, moral turpitude,

financial misappropriation or proved loss to

the employer, and where there is long service

without much blemish, the disciplinary

authority must carefully examine whether

any lesser punishment would meet the ends

of justice.

27. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a

case reported in 2005 (7) SCC 435 (State Bank of India and

another versus Bela Bagchi and others), in paragraph no.15 has

held as under:-

“15. A bank officer is required to exercise higher

standards of honesty and integrity. He deals

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

40/44

with 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 which

resulted in the 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. That being so, the

plea about absence of loss is also sans

substance.”

28. Similarly, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in a case reported in 2019 (1) BLJ 235 (Bali Ram Prasad Singh

versus General Manager, Bank of India and Another), in

paragraph nos.29 & 30 has held as under:-

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

41/44

“29. In the present case, the materials in

form of several management exhibits

and the oral evidence of the

management witnesses are clearly

indicating towards the reasonableness

on the part of the inquiry officer in

arriving at the findings recorded in the

Inquiry report. It cannot be said that

the findings of the Inquiry Officer are

perverse. This court would remind itself

with the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court rendered in the case of

State Bank of India (Supra) wherein it

has been held that it was impermissible

for the High Court to reappreciate

evidence which have been considered

by the Inquiry Officer. The jurisdiction

of the High Court is circumscribed and

confined to correct the errors of law of

procedural errors, if any, resulting in

manifest miscarriage of justice or

violation of principles of natural

justice. Similarly, this court would take

note of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Union of

India v. Sardar Bahadur reported in

(1972) 4 SCC 618 : (1972) 2 SCR 218

wherein it has been held that “a

disciplinary proceeding is not a

criminal trial. The standard proof

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

42/44

required is that of preponderance of

probability and not proof beyond

reasonable doubt…………..”

30. In the case of Chairman & Managing

Director, United Commercial Bank v.

P.C. Kakkar reported in (2003) 4 SCC

364; the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that “a Bank Officer is required to

exercise higher standards of honesty

and integrity. He deals with money of

the depositors and the customers. Every

officer/employee of the Bank is required

to take all possible steps to protect the

interest of the Bank and to discharge

his duty with utmost integrity, honestly,

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”.

29. So far, the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner with regard to the punishment being disproportionate to

the charges are concerned, there is no dispute that the High

Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review

cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and

impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority, shocks the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

43/44

conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would properly mold the

relief, either directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider the

penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in

exceptional and rare case, impose appropriate punishment with

cogent reasons in support thereof. In the present case, this Court

has come to the conclusion that since the delinquent did not

participate in the proceeding and the charges were proved beyond

reasonable doubt by the enquiry officer, on the basis of the

statement of the witnesses and on the basis of the documents relied

upon by the management and this Court from the materials

available on record finds that the delinquent had withdrawn the

amount from the account of the dead persons, which caused loss to

the reputation of the bank, which is paramount in case of the Bank

and which also eroded the public trust and confidence. Therefore,

this Court is of the opinion that the punishment imposed against

the delinquent is not required to be interfered with. So far, the

contention of the learned counsel for the delinquent that in similar

matter, one Ravi Kumar, who was also charged along with the

deceased petitioner, however, his case has been remitted back by a

learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

23.04.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7618 of 2012 is concerned,

this Court finds that in the said case, the charges were not found

Patna High Court CWJC No.20010 of 2011 dt. 22-09-2026

44/44

proved by the enquiry officer, but the disciplinary authority and

the appellate authority proceeded to hold him guilty on account of

him depositing the 50% of his share to the tune of Rs.2,13,000/- of

the defalcated amount, while being enlarged on bail by this

Hon’ble Court. In the present case, no such finding has been

recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority

and the delinquent has been awarded the punishment, after going

through the enquiry report and after considering each and every

charge, which was found to be proved by the enquiry officer.

30. From the consideration made above, this Court does

not find any reason to interfere with either the order issued vide

Memo No. RO/HRD/DA/2010-11/381 dated 22.02.2011 or the

order issued vide Memo No. ZO/AA/11-12/142 dated 28.06.2011.

31. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

32. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

AjayMishra/-

(Ritesh Kumar, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 10.08.2026

Uploading Date 22.09.2026

Transmission Date NA