Devraj Patwari vs The Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank & Ors.

Date : 07-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Office Assistant, Haripur Branch, R.O.-Bettiah. He joined the services on 07.04.2014 and had an unblemished career. Counsel further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had provided slips of deposit to the customers, but the said amounts were not deposited in the accounts of two customers, namely, Rs. 57,000/- and Rs. 49,600/-. The customers filed complaints, on the basis of which a departmental proceeding was initiated against him, and in the departmental proceeding, a charge was alleged regarding misappropriation of Rs. 1,06,600/-. Counsel further submits that his statement of defence was submitted before the Enquiry Officer through his defence representative, but the same was not duly considered, and final punishment was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, and the appeal has also been rejected.

Counsel further submits that, relating to the said allegation, an FIR bearing Sikta P.S. Case No. 148 of 2022, dated 14.10.2022, and G.R. Case No. 4446 of 2022, under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, was filed with the allegation of financial defalcation. Cognizance was taken, but subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted on 08.05.2023. Counsel further submits that once the criminal prosecution case has been dropped, there should be no punishment in the departmental proceeding. Counsel further submits that punishment has been inflicted in the nature of removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, in terms of Regulation 39(2)(b)(v) of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, read with the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Service (Amendment) Regulations, 2013. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is aged about 32 years and his entire career shall be exploited.

Counsel further relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 537. Counsel further submits that in this case, termination was made on the ground of financial irregularity committed by the petitioner-employee, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to remit the matter back to the appellate authority to consider whether a lesser punishment is not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, on the other hand, submits that a counter-affidavit has been filed in the present writ petition. Counsel further submits that the present writ petition is devoid of merit for the reason that, in the present departmental proceeding, there is neither any violation of natural justice nor any procedural irregularity, nor has punishment been imposed which is exorbitant in nature. Counsel further submits that a charge memo was served upon the petitioner with the specific allegation that he had accepted money from two customers but did not credit the same to the respective SB accounts of the customers and issued counterfoils as tokens of receipt of the money. As a result, he misappropriated Rs. 1,06,600/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Six Hundred) for pecuniary gain.

Counsel further submits that, in the said departmental proceeding, nine management exhibits and one management witness were presented by the Presenting Officer in support of the charges. The petitioner produced seven exhibits and no witness in his defence. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against him after providing due opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently deposited the money in the account, and the punishment order was passed, which has been annexed as Annexure-1.

Upon the specific query of the Court as to whether a second show-cause notice had been issued to the delinquent or not, in response thereto, counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the enquiry report is dated 23.11.2022, the second show-cause notice was issued along with the enquiry officer’s report on 04.09.2023, the explanation was submitted by him on 15.09.2023, and thereafter, the final order was passed on 17.10.2023.

In this background, this Court finds that there is no violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity in the same. So far as the contention regarding the exorbitant nature of the punishment is concerned, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. (supra). However, in the said case, the irregularity related to the transportation of goods, whereas, in the present case, the allegation is of misappropriation of the customers’ money into the personal account of the petitioner, which he subsequently deposited only after the charges were levelled against him. The punishment imposed is removal from service, and not disqualification from future employment.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the punishment imposed cannot be said to be exorbitant.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.