IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6821 of 2020

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

Vinay Verma son of Late Sukhdev Prasad Verma, Resident of Mohalla-

Balbhadarpur, House No. 60, near L.I.C. Office, P.o. and P.s.- Laheriasarai,

District- Darbhanga

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank through its Chairman Head Office Kalambagh

Road, Muzaffarpur, 842001

2.The Chairman cum the Appellate Authority, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head

Office Kalambagh Road, Muzaffarpur, 842001

3.The Chief Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office Kalambagh

Road, Muzaffarpur, 842001

4.The General Manager cum the Disciplinary Authority, Uttar Bihar Gramin

Bank, Head Office Kalambagh Road, Muzaffarpur, 842001

5.The Regional Manager, Jhanjharpur, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, ADB

Chowk, P.o.- Araria, District- Araria

6.The Branch Manager, Bithauli Branch, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Post-

Bithauli, Laheriasarai- Biraul Road, District Darbhanga

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Md. Shahnawaz Ali, Adv.

Mr. Md. Shadab Alam, Adv.

Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Adv.

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Adv.

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 23-07-2026

Heard Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior

Advocate, along with Mr. Md. Shahnawaz Ali, learned Advocate

for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhaka Jha, learned Advocate for

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

2/29

the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to

an order contained in letter No. HO/DAD/12/19-20/No. 319

dated 23.10.2019 issued by the General Manager-cum-

Disciplinary Authority whereby the petitioner has been inflicted

with the punishment of dismissal. The petitioner also sought

quashing of the order dated 04.01.2020 contained in letter No.

HO/DAD/12/19-20/No. 458 passed by the respondent

Chairman-cum-Appellate Authority whereby the appeal

preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal came to

be rejected.

3. The facts, in brief, leading to institution of the

present writ petition are that the petitioner was duly appointed to

the post of Junior Management (JMGS Grade-I) Officer. After

working so many places, in May, 2017 the petitioner was posted

as Branch Manager, Bithauli Branch, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

(in short ‘Bank’); Subsequently he was transferred as Branch

Manger to Araria Sangrampur Branch in the month of July,

2019. While working as Branch Manager (Officer Scale-I) at

Bithauli Brnach under Regional Office, Darbhanga, a Charge

Sheet was duly issued to the petitioner alleging the act of

omission and commission of the petitioner constituting

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

3/29

misconduct under Regulations 18 and 20 of the Uttar Bihar

Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation, 2010

read with Amended Regulation 2013, attracting penalty under

Regulation 39. The articles of charges against the petitioner

clearly reveal that the petitioner by using his power flouted the

financing norms of the Bank, committed gross misconduct in

violation of the banking norms, fraudulently sanctioned and

disbursed 44 fake loan with malafide intention to the fake

borrowers under Joint Liability Kisan Credit Card (in short

‘JLKCC’) Schemes. The aforesaid act of the petitioner was

found to be unbecoming of Bank’s Officer and prejudicial to the

interest of the Bank which constituted misconduct.

4. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted his

reply. However, the same did not satisfy the authority and a

departmental proceeding was commenced; the Enquiry Officer

and the Presenting Officer were appointed. The petitioner

submitted his detailed statement of defence. On the other hand,

the Management Representative/Presenting Officer produced

documentary evidences and one witness in the proceeding along

with other necessary papers, including the copy of 44 loan

documents, as per the demand of the petitioner. The defence

also produced 5 documents and examined three defence

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

4/29

witnesses during departmental enquiry. The Presenting Officer

also submitted his written brief statements and finally the

Conducting Officer returned his finding by holding the charges

proved against the petitioner vide enquiry report dated

27.09.2019 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition). The petitioner

was further called upon to submit his submission in respect of

finding of Enquiry Officer, which was responded vide letter

dated 12.10.2019. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration

of the facts emerged in the enquiry and the materials available

on record, vis-a-vis the gravity of charge proved, inflicted the

“punishment of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a

disqualification for future employment” vide order dated

23.10.2019 (Annexure-18) in terms of Regulation 39(1)(b)(v) of

the Service Regulation, 2010 read with the Amended

Regulation, 2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal

before the Appellate Authority-cum-Chairman which came to be

rejected vide order dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure-22) by

concurring the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.

5. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Advocate

adverting to the facts submitted that upon transfer of the

petitioner from Bithauli Branch to Araria Sangrampur Branch,

with respect to 44 JLKCC loan accounts, an enquiry was

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

5/29

conducted by one Gautam Govind, (Branch Manager, Shiv

Nagar Ghat) and he submitted his report on 27.08.2018 alleging

that since there is a failure on the part of the petitioner, who

failed to give importance to KYC verification and pre-sanction

verification, hence the outstanding amount of Rs.14,11,432/-

ought to be recovered from the petitioner as all the loan

accounts were fake. Based upon such report, the Assistant

Regional Manager was appointed as Examinee Officer, who

vide his letter No. 179 dated 13.09.2018 intimated that there is

no accountability of the petitioner. The report of the Assistant

Regional Manager was also intimated to the Chief Manager of

the Bank through the Regional Manager vide letter No. 210

dated 14.09.2018 stating therein that the so called alleged fake

accounts have been closed after recovery of the loan amount and

thus it was recommended that in the light of the aforesaid

letters, no accountability of any officer/employee of the Bank is

surfaced. But surprisingly the same Branch Manager who had

vide his letter No. 179 dated 13.09.2018 certified that the loan

accounts were not fake, informed the Regional Manager that

what had been communicated earlier that was a mistake due to

oversight, and in fact all the 44 JLKCC loan accounts were

completely fake which led to reference of the matter in a Fraud

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

6/29

Declaration Committee and to the utter surprise the Regional

Manager, Assistant Regional Manager and the then Branch

Manager, who had earlier certified that there was no

accountability of any officer or employee with respect of 44

JLKCC loan accounts, decided to recommend to the Head

Office to take action against the petitioner. It is the specific case

of the petitioner that he had followed all the norms of the Bank

while sanctioning the loan after proper verification of the

beneficiaries through Voter ID Card presented by them. Since

there was no mechanism to verify the authenticity of the Voter

ID Card and thus on the basis of local inspection, loan amounts

were sanctioned.

6. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Advocate for

the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders submitted

that the charge sheet being defective not accompanied by the

distinct and precise statement of imputation, list of documents

and list of witnesses, the disciplinary authority proceeded

thereupon, is per se illegal and the finding of the Enquiry

Officer is based on no evidence and, as such, the alleged charges

were not proved in the manner known to the law. It is further

contended that despite the demand having been made by the

delinquent petitioner, copies of prosecution documents were not

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

7/29

provided and thus the entire disciplinary proceeding stands

vitiated in the eye of law. It is vehemently contended that when

the charge sheet and the enquiry report are defective, then

automatically all future orders shall also become defective. To

support the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on the

decision rendered in the cases of Roop Singh Negi Vs. The

Punjab National Bank & Ors. [(2009) 2 SCC 570], State of

Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC

772] and in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. The Commissioner

of Police & Ors. [(1999) 2 SCC 10].

7. It is further contended that a Bench of this Court in

the case of Manish Prajapati Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

[2025(3) BLJ 232 (Pat.)] where the charge memo does not

contain any list of witness nor it was ever produced during

enquiry, the Court held that without citing any witness in the

charge memo, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of

some of the witnesses which were not relevant and thus the

Court held that the allegation has not been proved as it is a case

of no evidence.

8. Learned Senior Advocate further argued that the

Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority has illegally

returned the finding of charges proved against the petitioner by

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

8/29

illegally shifting the onus of disapproving the same upon the

petitioner which is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law.

[Vide:Tej Narayan Chaudhary Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors,

2020(1) BLJ 11]. The disciplinary authority completely failed

to consider the explanation of the petitioner on the findings

given by the Enquiry Officer while inflicting severest

punishment of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a

disqualification for future employment.

9. It is further urged that the report of the Gautam

Govind based upon which the Enquiry Officer returned his

finding of guilt is wholly perverse and rested upon presumption

and it is not clear as to how he reached on such conclusion. The

certificate of the Mukhiya which was produced and exhibited by

the Management has not even been proved as the concerned

Mukhiya has never been examined and thus cannot be relied

upon. The finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner did

not follow the norms and conditions of the Bank is vague and

unfounded as the enquiring authority failed to refer any specific

banking norms which the petitioner had violated. There is

nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was the

beneficiary of the loan amount. Furthermore, the order of

punishment is grossly disproportionate to the charges and has

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

9/29

caused grave prejudice not only to the petitioner but also to his

entire family. To support his submission, reliance has also been

placed on a decision rendered in the case of Surekha Domaji

Bele Vs. Executive Engineer, Testing Division,

MSEDCL[2026 SCC OnLine SC 1109].

10. Per contra, learned Advocate for the Bank, Mr.

Prabhakar Jha vehemently refuted the contention of the learned

Advocate for the petitioner and submitted that it was the

responsibility of the petitioner as Branch Manager to establish

the genuineness of the borrowers and in the instant case it has

already been established that the petitioner sanctioned and

disbursed loan to the fake borrowers, who do not even exist at

the address mentioned in the KYC which clearly depicts the

petitioner had not even visited the borrowers’ house and even

met with the borrowers personally. The aforesaid act clearly

shows the malafide of the petitioner. Moreover, fake voter ID

and photograph does establish that KYC verification has not

been done.

11. It is further contended that Sri Gautam Govind in

its investigation report dated 27.08.2018 verified all the loan

accounts and submitted separate report for each and every 44

suspicious loan accounts with a clear finding that there is huge

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

10/29

tampering in the Voter ID Cards which have been taken as KYC

documents. During investigation, he also visited the Ward along

with Mukhiya and Ward Member to meet the borrowers but

none of them were found in that locality. The public

representative also stated that the borrowers are not of these

locality. The recommendation for closure of the account is only

made because of the fact that accounts are declared as fake and

thus the closure of the account does not mitigate the seriousness

of the irregularity. Sanction and disbursement of loan to fake

borrowers is a fraudulent act. Therefore, accountability has been

fixed against the petitioner. Gautam Govind was also produced

as Management witness in departmental proceeding who was

cross examined with respect to his report. In the said process, he

supported the charges and the contents of the report. The

certificate issued by the Mukhiya that all the 44 borrowers are

not the resident of Bithauli and their names are not enrolled in

the electoral roll has not been disapproved by producing any

evidence. Electoral roll was also produced as MEx 4/1 to MEx

4/5.

12. It is further argued that the petitioner also

produced three defence witnesses. However, they failed to give

the details of borrowers by looking at their photographs and

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

11/29

they have also stated in course of enquiry that they did not know

the borrowers with the names and addresses. The petitioner has

been given ample opportunity of hearing and all the documents

which have been sought for by the petitioner, as is evident from

the minutes of the proceedings, copies of which have also been

placed on record as Annexure-13 to the writ petition.

13. Mr. Jha learned Advocate for the Bank thus

contended that there is no infirmities in the enquiry conducted

by the Enquiry Officer and the impugned order of dismissal is

proportionate to the charges, which has also been affirmed by

the Appellate Authority. Placing reliance upon the case of

Regional Manager, U.P., SRTC, Etawah & Ors. Vs. Hoti Lal

& Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 605], it is submitted that the Bank

institution is an institution of hope and trust of public at large

and the act of the petitioner was contrary to the banking norms

and regulations as well as the guidelines and thus the writ

petition lacks any merit. Further, reliance has also been placed

on a decision rendered by a Bench decision of this Court in the

case of Binod Singh Saumitra Vs. Chairman & Managing

Director, Allahabad Bank [2018(3) PLJR 543] as well as the

decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of The

State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Yavitri Devi & Ors. [LPA No. 1358

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

12/29

of 2017], that the departmental proceeding cannot be faulted on

the ground that no witness was examined. The Bank officer who

was charged to have sanctioned without adhering to the lending

norms, his action amounts to serious misconduct [Vide:State

Bank of India & Ors. Vs. T. J. Paul. (1999) 4 SCC 459.

14. This Court has anxiously heard the learned Senior

Advocate/Advocate for the respective parties at length and also

perused the materials available on record, besides went through

the decisions referred hereinabove by both the parties. Before

coming to the facts of this case, it would be relevant to highlight

the scope of judicial review in view of the pronouncements of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered time to time.

15. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S. Sree Rama

Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723], a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Curt ruled that the High Court is not a court of appeal

over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental

enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine

whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that

behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf,

and whether the rules of natural justice are violated or not.

Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted

with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

13/29

evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the

delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of

the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India to review the evidence.

16. Similarly, in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India

[(1995) 6 SCC 749], the Court underscored that the power of

judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of

the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial

review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair

treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the

authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court.

While exercising the power of judicial review, the Court does

not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence

and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence.

However, the Court may interfere where the authority held the

proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner

inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of

statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the

conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is

based on no evidence.

17. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal

evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

14/29

Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be

permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal [Vide:

Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364]. In the

aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified that

if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached

by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent

error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a

writ of certiorari could be issued.

18. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi

Chand Nalwaya [(2011) 4 SCC 584], the Court observed that

High Court/Tribunal ought not to reassess the evidence led in

the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another

view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry 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 ground for interfering

with the findings in departmental enquiries.

19. It is would also be relevant to refer a judgment

rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran

[(2015) 2 SCC 610], where the Court exhaustively laid down

the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in

the disciplinary proceedings, which parameters would be worth

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

15/29

benefiting to quote hereinunder:

“(i) re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the

enquiry, in case the same has been conducted

in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence

on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it

may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment

unless it shocks its conscience.”

20. In the light of the scope and ambit of judicial

review, now this Court primarily takes into consideration the

facts of the case. There is no dispute that the petitioner was

appointed to the post of Junior Management Scale-I Officer in

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank and at the time of alleged misconduct

he was serving as Branch Manager, Bithauli Branch and thus the

entire action leading to initiation of a departmental proceeding

culminated into punishment having been carried out under the

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service

Regulation, 2010. Chapter IV of the Regulation 2010 which

deals with Conduct, Discipline and Appeals. Clause 39(1)(b)

deals with Major Penalties and (v) thereof stipulates “dismissal

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

16/29

which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future

employment”. However, it is made clear that no order imposing

any of the major penalties specified above shall be made except

by an order in writing signed by the competent authority; and no

such order shall be passed without the charge or charges framed

in writing and given to the officer and enquiry held so that he

shall have reasonable opportunity to answer the charge or

charges and defend himself, in case of the officers of the Bank.

21. Before initiation of departmental proceeding,

admittedly a preliminary enquiry was conducted by one Gautam

Govind with respect to 44 JLKCC loan accounts and he

submitted his report on 27.08.2018. Based upon such report, the

reply of the petitioner was sought for and subsequently the

matter is placed in a Fraud Declaration Committee in presence

of the Regional Manager, Assistant Regional Manager and the

then Branch Manager who have finally recommended to take

action upon which the petitioner was served with show cause

and finally the Bank has taken a decision to initiate a

departmental proceeding by serving memorandum of charge

sheet containing charges, inter alia, he sanctioned and disbursed

loans in the name of fake borrowers, as borrowers were not

found residing or exist on the address as mentioned in the loan

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

17/29

accounts and KYC documents. He pasted fake photograph of

the borrowers as these photograph does not match with any

local person of the village Bithauli i.e address mention in Bank

record. He obtained fake KYC documents as EPIC No.

mentioned in Voters ID cards belong to different block and

application name of borrower did not match with the original

EPIC holder name. He did not verify KYC documents. He did

not conduct pre and post inspection before sanction and

disbursement of loan. Fraudulent act of Sri Verma was also

ascertained from the certificate of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat

Bithauli, which confirms that the borrowers, as mentioned in

Bank's record, do not belong to Bithauli Village.

22. The charge sheet contains in Annexure-1 and 2, the

details of all the loan accounts mentioned besides the

imputation. However, this is the admitted position that in the

charge sheet there were no list of documents and the witnesses

by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained.

The Conducting Officer as well as the Presenting Officer were

duly appointed by the Bank and upon notice the petitioner

entered his appearance and had opted one Sudhir Kumar as a

defence representative. The management

representative/Presenting Officer produced eight

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

18/29

documents/papers as documentary evidence along with copies

of 44 loan documents as per the demand of the petitioner in

support of charge levelled against him. It is also relevant to note

here that the Management has also produced Gautam Govind as

a witness in order to prove the contents of the report dated

27.08.2018. The petitioner along with his defence representative

was all along present in the enquiry and; all the documents on

which the Bank has placed reliance, have been handed over to

the petitioner.

23. Now the question for consideration before this

Court is as to whether the charge sheet which does not contain

list of documents and witnesses suffers from vice of illegality

and on the basis which the enquiry that has been conducted be

held unsustainable in law?

24. There is no confrontation with regard to the settled

proposition of law that the charges would be proved only on the

basis of the documentary and/or oral evidences, unless accepted

by the delinquent. In Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has clearly ruled that mere tendering the

documents would not be suffice to prove the charges unless oral

evidence is produced to prove the contents thereof. It is well

settled that unless the author of the documents is produced as

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

19/29

witness or examined or cross-examined, the charges cannot be

said to have been proved and thus at the time of framing of the

charge, the disciplinary authority ought to furnish a list of

documents and witnesses by whom he proposes to sustain the

charges. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai

Prakash Saini Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative

Federation Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 505

has held that unless the charged employee accepts his guilt in

clear terms, an enquiry on the charges drawn against him would

have to be held. In the enquiry, the employer/department would

have to take steps first to lead evidence against the workmen /

delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross

examine those witnesses. Only thereafter, the workmen /

delinquent shall be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence

and/or submit an explanation about the evidence led against

him. Even in a case based solely on documentary evidence,

unless the relied upon documents are admitted by the charged

employee, a witness would have to be examined to prove those

documents and when so examined, the witness would have to be

tendered for cross-examination.

25. Now coming to the Regulation, 2010, which

governs the disciplinary proceeding of Officers/Employees of

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

20/29

the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. Regulation 39 mandates that in

case an officer commits a breach of discipline or guilty of

misconduct or commits an act detrimental to the interests of the

Bank shall be liable for major punishment, including dismissal

which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future

employment, provided charge/charges are framed in writing and

given to the officer and enquiry be held so that he shall have

reasonable opportunity to answer the charge or charges and

defend himself. Regulations do not mandate that the memo of

charge shall accompany with list of documents/witnesses. It is

not the case of the petitioner that the documents on which the

Bank management has placed reliance in order to sustain the

charges have not been handed over to him, rather copy of the

proceedings which have been brought on record clearly suggest

that all the documents and even the documents which have been

demanded by the petitioner have been handed over to him.

Since some of the documents, including the electoral roll of

concerned Ward/Panchayat as well as the application forms of

the loan accounts, were either public documents and or

authenticity of which have not been disputed, hence contents of

which are not required to be proved by its author. The

Management has also produced Sri Gautam Govind who had

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

21/29

submitted his report on 27.08.2018 in order to prove its

contents. Thus, the submission of the learned Senior Advocate

for the petitioner that the mere absence of the list of documents

and witnesses in the charge sheet does not invalidate it or affect

the disciplinary proceedings. It would also be useful to refer the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara

Chand Vyas Vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority &

Others; (1997) 4 SCC 565, where the Court held that if the

charges are based on documentary evidence which have been

duly supplied to the delinquent and the veracity of which has

not been disputed by the charged officer, the finding of guilt

cannot be interfered with.

26. Now coming to the enquiry report, it is the

admitted position that the proceeding was commenced against

the petitioner on 07.06.2019 and concluded on 21.08.2019 in ten

sittings. At the inception, the petitioner was allowed to opt

Defence Representative and upon his appointment the

Presenting Officer produced necessary documentary evidence

which were duly marked as management exhibit. The aforesaid

documentary evidence also include the report dated 27.08.2018

duly prepared by one Sri Goutam Govind wherein he had

disclosed that he analysed each and every account and

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

22/29

submitted separate report in each and every 44 loan accounts,

and found there was huge tampering with the Voter ID Card

which have been taken as KYC documents. The name

mentioned on EPIC taken as KYC was found different from the

names mentioned in the original EPIC.

27. The management also produced Sri Goutam

Govind as a witness to prove the contents of the report, who was

duly examined by the Presenting Officer and cross-examined by

the petitioner, in respect of his finding/investigation report. The

petitioner has also taken the plea in the writ petition that copies

of the prosecution documents were not provided despite calling

for the same. However, the same does not find to be correct in

view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as

recorded in the minutes of the proceeding dated 26.04.2019,

which clearly suggests that all the necessary documents

including 44 applications of loan account have been handed

over to the petitioner. Moreover it is not specifically disclosed

as to which document called for by the petitioner has not been

handed over to him and thereby any prejudice has been caused.

Such plea of the petitioner appears to be unfounded.

28. In course of enquiry, the petitioner has also

produced three defence witnesses namely, Amarnath Jha, Sri

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

23/29

Ramashankar Jha and Sri Santosh Rai, who said that they know

the borrowers personally. However, during cross examination

when they were asked to give the details of the borrowers by

looking at photographs of borrowers, they have shown their

inability and deposed that they do not know the borrowers with

their names and address. In the aforesaid premise, the

contention of the petitioner that the certificate of Mukhiya dated

03.11.2018 confirming that all the 44 borrowers are not the

resident of Bithauli and their names are not enrolled in their

electoral roll finds relevant even if the Mukhiya of the

concerned Panchayat was not examined as the report of the

Mukhiya gets corroborated from the electoral roll of Bithauli,

which is duly marked as management exhibit 4/1 to

management exhibit 4/5; the authenticity of which has never

been disputed by the petitioner.

29. Hence, the plea canvassed on behalf of the

petitioner that onus of disapproving the charge has been

wrongly shifted upon the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid

facts, does not persuade this Court. What is required to be

looked into is as to whether in a departmental proceeding the

delinquent has been afforded fair opportunity and the rules of

natural justice are followed. After careful consideration of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

24/29

enquiry report, and the minutes of the proceedings, this Court is

of the firm opinion that the petitioner has all along been

provided proper and adequate opportunity of hearing and at no

stage of enquiry he has been deprived of his right to defend his

case resulting into any violation of the principles of natural

justice.

30. The Enquiry Officer after proper examination of

the materials available on record, considering the deposition of

witnesses, has returned the finding that the charges levelled

against the petitioner stood proved.

31. The explanation of petitioner, on enquiring report,

was duly considered by the disciplinary authority before

inflicting punishment. The impugned order of punishment

reflects that the disciplinary authority has applied his mind to

the explanation /second show cause reply of the petitioner and

on being found that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based

upon admissible evidence, the order of dismissal came to be

passed. Time without number, the Court has observed that if a

disciplinary authority accepts the finding recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, no details reasons are required to be recorded

in the order imposing punishment.

32. Keeping in mind, a Bank Officer is required to

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

25/29

exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity. It would also

be apposite to refer the decision rendered in the case of State

Bank of India & Ors vs. Bela Bagchi & Ors. [(2005) 7 SCC

435]:

“15. 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 b 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 Patnaik³, it is no defence

available to say that there was no loss or

profit c which resulted in the case, when the

officer/employee acted without authority.

The very discipline of an organisation 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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

26/29

The charges against the employee were not

casual in nature and were serious. That

being so, the plea about absence of d loss is

also sans substance.”

33. A Co ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Bali Ram Prasad Singh vs. The General Manager (HR) cum

Reviewing Authority, Bank of India & Anr. [(2019) 1 BLJ 235

(PHC)] in its paragraphs 29 and 30 placing reliance upon the

Apex Court decision has ruled that every officer/employee of

the Bank is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and

integrity, while carrying out his duly. It would be worth

benefiting to quote the relevant paragraphs:

“29. In the case of Chairman & Managing

Director, United Commercial Bank and

Others vs. 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,

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 the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

27/29

every officer/employee of the Bank...”

30. In the case of Disciplinary Authority-

cum- Regional Manager vs. Nikunja

Kumari Patnaik (supra) the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that "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 once authority is by itself a

breach of discipline and is a

misconduct........”

34. After careful perusal of the enquiry report as well

as the impugned order of dismissal, now this Court takes up the

plea of the learned Senior Advocate that the order of dismissal is

disproportionate to the charges. There is no dispute that the

High Court/Tribunal while exercising 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

conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately

mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

28/29

authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the

litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.

35. Once this Court has come to the conclusion that

the order of punishment is based upon the enquiry report which

clearly reflects that the petitioner has fraudulently sanctioned

and disbursed 44 fake loans with malafide intention to fake

borrowers which is an act of institutional corruption, resulting

into misappropriation and financial loss to the Bank, eroding

public trust and confidence; based upon such finding, the

disciplinary authority, after following the procedure adopted and

due compliance of the principles of natural justice, imposed the

punishment in terms with Regulation 39(2)(b)(vi) of Regulation,

2010, no interference is required. Since the act of the petitioner,

besides constituting gross misconduct, it clearly undermine the

hope and trust of the public at large. The punishment imposed

does not require any reconsideration.

36. This Court also considers it necessary to address

the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that no loss

has been caused to the Bank. The said contention is wholly

misconceived and untenable. The record reveals that all 44 loan

accounts were directed to be closed, having been declared fake

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026

29/29

accounts. Consequently, in such circumstances, no mechanism

remained available to the Bank for the recovery of the loan

amounts disbursed under the said accounts. Accordingly, the

submission that no loss was caused to the Bank is devoid of

merit and is liable to be rejected.

37. Lastly, this Court also does not find any error in

the appellate order whereby the appellate authority-cum-

Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank has rejected the appeal of

the petitioner by affirming the order of the disciplinary

authority.

38. In view thereof, this Court does not find any merit

in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

39. The parties shall bear their own cost.

Anjani/-

(Harish Kumar, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 23.07.2026

Transmission Date N.A.