Mangnoo Jha vs Punjab National Bank Through Chairman Cum Managing Director

Hon'Ble Irshad Ali, J.

Heard Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent – Bank.

The present writ petition has been filed on following prayer: "(i) to issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of dismissal from service dated 01.11.2012 as well as the appellate order passed by the appellate authority dated 27.03.2014 as contained in Annexure No.1 respectively to the writ petition with all consequential service benefits.

Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was duly selected and was initially appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in substantive capacity in Punjab National Bank and joined service on 01.12.1978. He was thereafter promoted to Officer Grade-I in 1984 and, on account of his service and eligibility, he was promoted as Assistant Manager in the year 1987.

The work and conduct of the petitioner throughout his service remained excellent. He was awarded an 'ISO 9001 certificate (International Standard Organization)' for his commendable services rendered at Punjab National Bank, Mahanagar Branch, Lucknow, which was stated to be the first branch in the banking sector to receive such certificate. The petitioner remained posted as Assistant Manager at Mahanagar Branch, Lucknow from October 1994 to 05.09.1998, during which period nothing adverse was recorded against him. His service record was neat and clear and contained no adverse entry or remark.

While the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager at Punjab National Bank, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow, an FIR was registered against him on 28.02.1999 at Police Station Hussainganj, Sadar, Lucknow, as Case Crime No. 72 of 1999 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Thereafter, on 15.03.1999, another FIR was lodged at Police Station Mahanagar, Lucknow, alleging fraud and defalcation of bank funds, which was registered as Case Crime No. 140 of 1999 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

Pursuant to the aforesaid FIRs, the petitioner was arrested on 01.03.1999 and sent to jail. He was enlarged on bail in both cases in October 2000. After being released on bail, the petitioner submitted his joining in the Bank, but he was not permitted to join on the ground that he had been placed under suspension.

Although the petitioner had been suspended in the year 1999, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 29.04.2002 only after a lapse of about three years. The charge-sheet was issued under the signatures of the Zonal Manager, East U.P. Zone, as the Disciplinary Authority under Regulation 6 of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977, and was served upon the petitioner on 05.05.2002.

The charges contained in the charge-sheet were vague and indistinct and did not disclose a proper basis enabling the petitioner to submit an effective defence. The petitioner, therefore, made representations dated 08.05.2002 and 24.06.2002 seeking supply of relevant defence documents. He submitted a list of 48 documents, some of which were referred to in the charge-sheet and others were required for his defence, but the documents were not supplied.

Instead of supplying the documents and permitting the petitioner to submit his written statement, the Disciplinary Authority appointed Sri R.C. Maurya, Senior Manager, Zonal Office, Lucknow, as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 19.06.2002, served upon the petitioner on 26.06.2002. The petitioner again requested the Disciplinary Authority on 29.06.2002 to supply the documents so that he could submit his written statement, but the request remained unheeded.

Since the departmental proceedings were based upon the same facts and evidence which were also the subject matter of the criminal cases arising out of the aforesaid FIRs, the petitioner requested that the disciplinary proceedings be kept in abeyance till evidence was led in the criminal proceedings. The request was rejected and the petitioner challenged the same before this Hon'ble Court by filing Writ Petition No.1356 (S/B) of 2002. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 08.02.2008 on the principle that there was no bar to simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings.

During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, Sri U.S. Awasthi was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 12.12.2007. The petitioner objected to his appointment on the ground of bias and his involvement in framing the charge-sheet. The objection was accepted and Sri Deepak Dave, Senior Manager, Branch Office, Lalbagh, Lucknow, was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 06.02.2008.

The newly appointed Enquiry Officer fixed 18.02.2008 for enquiry. Since the petitioner was not available on that date, he requested on 15.02.2008 for another date. However, without responding to the request, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry on 18.02.2008 in the absence of the petitioner, permitted production of additional management documents, directed that the enquiry proceed ex parte and fixed further dates without ensuring proper notice to the petitioner.

The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, recorded the statement of Management Witness No.1- Sri A.C. Ghosh, Senior Manager, Jaunpur, behind the back of the petitioner and continued the enquiry on subsequent dates. Despite representations dated 04.05.2008 and 11.05.2008 stating that the demanded documents had not been supplied and that the petitioner had not received proper intimation of the proceedings, the enquiry was continued in his absence and his opportunity of cross-examination was closed.

On 09.06.2008, Management Witness No.2 - Sri Salil Chandra, Senior Manager, Aishbagh, Lucknow, was examined behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner had sought adjournment on medical grounds, but the same was not properly dealt with. On 21.06.2008 the petitioner submitted objections to the enquiry being conducted behind his back without supplying the documents and without affording him effective opportunity of defence. The objections were not heeded and the third Management Witness was also examined in the petitioner's absence.

Aggrieved by the manner in which the enquiry was being conducted and the continued non-supply of documents, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1324 (S/B) of 2008 before this Hon'ble Court. The writ petition was decided on 21.02.2012, wherein this Hon'ble Court held that the documents demanded by the petitioner, which were necessary for his defence, were liable to be supplied. The Court further provided that where supply of any document was not practically possible for a valid reason, inspection thereof should be permitted by fixing the date, time and place, and that the petitioner should be given free access to such documents. The enquiry was directed to be concluded in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.

The certified copy of the judgment and order dated 21.02.2012 was served upon the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and other concerned authorities through registered post on 02.03.2012. The petitioner also furnished a chart specifying the documents demanded, their relevancy and their connection with the charges.

Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer fixed 16.04.2012 for enquiry. The petitioner appeared and again demanded the documents along with the chart showing their relevancy. On 17.04.2012, the petitioner explained the relevancy of the documents, which was found proper by the Enquiry Officer. On 18.04.2012, the petitioner was permitted to inspect documents at Vidhan Sabha Marg Branch and Mahanagar Branch.

During inspection, several documents were found unavailable. The petitioner was supplied certificates regarding non-availability of certain documents and copies of some other documents. Letters dated 23.04.2012, 24.04.2012 and 26.04.2012 recorded the non-availability of several documents despite their relevancy having been accepted.

The petitioner also requested production of the original documents for verification of the photocopies supplied to him. Despite his repeated objections regarding the genuineness of the photocopies, the originals were not produced. On 24.05.2012, the Enquiry Officer refused inspection of several management documents on the ground that opportunity regarding the same had already been given earlier, notwithstanding the subsequent directions of this Hon'ble Court dated 21.02.2012.

On 26.05.2012, Management witness No.1 - Sri A.C. Ghosh, was produced for cross-examination. The petitioner again requested production of original documents, but the Presenting Officer stated that the originals of the exhibits were kept before the Enquiry Officer and that the copies could be verified where there was doubt. The petitioner maintained that the photocopies were not genuine and repeatedly requested production of the originals, but his request was not accepted.

During his cross-examination, Management Witness No.-1 admitted that he had never worked with the petitioner at either Mahanagar Branch or Vidhan Sabha Marg Branch and had never been posted at Mahanagar Branch during the relevant period. Although he claimed familiarity with the petitioner's signature, he could not satisfactorily explain the basis thereof. Management Witness No.2 also disputed certain signatures attributed to the petitioner, whereas Management Witness No.1 had stated otherwise. These circumstances made production of the original documents material, but the same was not done.

Management Witness No.3 - Sri G.N. Gupta, deposed regarding the manner in which work was carried out in the branches in accordance with the applicable circulars and stated that the petitioner had not been allotted any role in the working under the computer system. Management Witness No.4 - Sri V.P. Saxena, who was functioning as Concurrent Auditor at Vidhan Sabha Marg Branch, could not prove any allegation against the petitioner. The complainant, Sri S.K. Jha, was never produced to prove the complaint or the alleged incident.

Apart from the aforesaid four witnesses, no other management witness was produced to substantiate the charges. The petitioner also demanded additional documents on 28.06.2012 in place of documents certified as unavailable and furnished the relevancy thereof. On 23.05.2012 and 03.07.2012, the petitioner made further representations to the Disciplinary Authority seeking inspection and supply of documents and also furnished a list of defence witnesses along with the relevancy of their evidence.

On 04.07.2012, the petitioner requested summoning of four defence witnesses, namely Sri R.B.L. Goswami, Sri Kamal Kant, Sri D.S. Hayanki and Sri Sunil Pandey. Sri Kamal Kant and Sri D.S. Hayanki were members of the balancing team and Sri Sunil Pandey was the Clerk assisting the team. The petitioner stated that their evidence was material to establish that the balancing of the bank showed no discrepancy and that the allegations were baseless. The Enquiry Officer refused to summon Sri Kamal Kant and Sri D.S. Hayanki on the ground that their names had not been exhibited in the documents.

None of the defence witnesses cited by the petitioner was ultimately examined and the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity to present his defence. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry proceedings on 06.07.2012. The petitioner nevertheless submitted his written brief on 06.08.2012.

The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 17.08.2012. The report was supplied to the petitioner through the Disciplinary Authority's letter dated 24.08.2012, served upon him on 30.08.2012, and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit his representation. The petitioner submitted his detailed representation against the enquiry report on 24.09.2012.

Notwithstanding the objections raised by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal dated 01.11.2012, holding all the charges proved against the petitioner. The order was communicated vide letter dated 27.11.2012 and received by the petitioner on 07.12.2012. By the said order, the petitioner was dismissed from service, which was made ordinarily a disqualification for future employment under Regulation 4(j) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The salary for the suspension period was also forfeited except the subsistence allowance already paid and the suspension period was treated as not spent on duty.

The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a departmental appeal against the dismissal order on 18.01.2013. The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority, General Manager, PAD, vide order dated 27.03.2014, which was served upon the petitioner in April 2014. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had failed to disprove the charges by bringing any fresh fact on record.

The appellate authority did not independently consider whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority were justified or whether the penalty imposed was excessive or inadequate, as required under Regulation 17 of the 1977 Regulations. The issues of natural justice, non-supply of documents, non-production of original records, denial of opportunity to examine defence witnesses and other specific grounds raised by the petitioner were not considered. A cryptic order was passed without dealing with the material grounds urged in the appeal.

The entire disciplinary proceedings were conducted on the premise that the charges were already proved and that the petitioner was required to disprove them. The documents relied upon by the department were not duly proved by examining their authors, nor were the originals produced despite repeated demands by the petitioner. The petitioner consistently disputed the genuineness of the photocopies and sought production of original records, but his objections were not properly dealt with.

A material issue throughout the disciplinary proceedings was that the petitioner had never worked as a System Administrator. The charge-sheet described the alleged misconduct as having been committed while the petitioner was functioning as System Administrator, stating:

The Punjab National Bank had earlier instituted Regular Suit No. 117/99 against the petitioner before the Court of the 1st Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 20, Lucknow, in which Issue No. 1 was framed as to whether the petitioner had ever been posted as System Administrator. The learned Civil Court decided the issue negatively and held that the Bank had failed to establish that the petitioner had ever worked as System Administrator. The suit was dismissed and Regular Civil Appeal No. 14/09 against the judgment dated 05.12.2008 was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge-X, Lucknow on 26.07.2013, after which the matter attained finality.

According to the Handbook of Computerization of Branches dated 28.01.1995, a System Administrator could be appointed from officers not below Scale-II. The petitioner was admittedly working in Scale-I and, therefore, could not have been appointed as System Administrator. The relevant handbook also contemplated issuance of an office order for such appointment. No such office order was ever produced by the Bank.

None of the four Management Witnesses stated that any office order had been issued appointing or recognizing the petitioner as System Administrator. Nevertheless, the Enquiry Officer proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner was functioning as System Administrator and held him responsible for alleged lapses associated with that post. The petitioner accordingly submits that the finding was based on no evidence.

In relation to Charge No. I(A)(a), it was alleged that the petitioner reopened closed Account No. 16488, originally standing in the name of Anoop Chandra Srivastava, after altering the name to Arun Kumar and fraudulently misappropriated Rs. 6,15,454/- through the account. However, there was no evidence establishing that the petitioner reopened the account or changed the name of the account holder. The account had been opened and closed at a time when the petitioner was not posted at Mahanagar Branch; he joined the branch only in October 1994, whereas the account had been closed on 11.02.1994.

The alleged transactions in Account No.16488 were also not connected with the petitioner by any proved evidence. The vouchers marked E 3/6 and E 3/7 relating to the alleged transaction of Rs.15,000/-were not signed by the petitioner. Management Witnesses did not establish that the signatures were those of the petitioner. In cross-examination, MW-1 stated:

The other vouchers, including E 3/8 and E 3/9, were also not proved to have been signed or initialled by the petitioner. Further, the Teller Card marked E 3/3a was prepared on 26.05.1994, before the petitioner's posting at Mahanagar Branch. Thus, the documents relied upon did not establish any connection between the petitioner and the alleged transactions.

Charge No. I(A)(b) related to Saving Fund Account No. 18646, originally standing in the name of Sri Khem Singh, which was alleged to have been operated after alteration of the name to Arun Kumar and through which fictitious entries were allegedly made. It was further alleged that the petitioner passed a voucher for Rs.30,736.94. However, the evidence did not establish any connection between the petitioner and the account or the alleged transactions. The vouchers were not signed by the petitioner and the witnesses did not state that the petitioner had carried out any of the alleged acts.

The petitioner had requested examination of Sri Kamal Kant and Sri D.S. Hayanki, who were members of the balancing team and were material witnesses concerning the alleged transactions. The Enquiry Officer refused to summon them. Although the Enquiry Officer noticed that one of the documents relied upon was torn and had not been substantiated by any witness, the charge was nevertheless treated as proved.

Charge No. I(A)(c) alleged that the petitioner, while functioning as System Administrator, unauthorisedly debited various impersonal heads under user ID/ISBS and thereby defrauded the Bank. The petitioner consistently denied functioning as System Administrator and relied upon the Civil Court's finding that the Bank had failed to establish such posting. No evidence was produced to establish that the petitioner had been appointed System Administrator or had been allotted the relevant password or user ID. The Enquiry Officer nevertheless held the charge proved without referring to any reliable management evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged transactions.

Charge No. I(A)(d) alleged that amounts were withdrawn from Saving Fund Account No. 18646 and that, except for four cheques passed by the CTO, the remaining cheques had been passed by the petitioner. However, the evidence did not establish that the petitioner handled the said account or passed the alleged cheques. The documents relied upon were photocopies, the originals were not produced despite demand, and the petitioner disputed the signatures. There was also no proved evidence establishing transfer of any alleged misappropriated amount to Account No. 16982.

Charge No. I(B)(a) alleged that while working as System Administrator at Vidhan Sabha Marg Branch, the petitioner opened Saving Fund Account No. 35343 in the name of Rajesh Kumar and fraudulently credited and withdrew certain amounts. The account-opening document did not bear the petitioner's signature as introducer and the original was not produced. The other documents relied upon were photocopies and did not establish that the transactions were carried out by the petitioner. The petitioner also relied upon the banking procedure under which day-end reports were generated and preserved as records of transactions.

Management Witness No.2 specifically stated:

Charge No. I(B)(b) alleged that the petitioner fraudulently got prepared two FDRs of Rs.85,000/- and Rs.65,000/- in the name of Rajesh Kumar at Vidhan Sabha Marg Branch. The originals of the documents relied upon were not produced despite repeated requests. The evidence of MW-3 did not relate to this charge and did not establish the petitioner's involvement. The finding was therefore unsupported by the evidence on record.

Charge No. I(B)(c) alleged issuance of a pay order for Rs.40,800/-in favour of M/s. Sun Motors by fraudulently debiting MBFD manual. The Enquiry Officer himself found that there was no debit voucher or other document establishing the alleged debit. The petitioner had never been appointed System Administrator and had never been allotted the ISBS password or ID. In the absence of the debit voucher or any evidence connecting the transaction with the petitioner, the charge could not be established.

Charge No.II alleged misappropriation of Rs.14,500/- stated to have been given to the petitioner by Sri S.K. Jha as margin money for sanction of a computer loan of Rs.50,000/-. However, the documentary evidence itself showed that the margin money was credited to the account of Sri Santosh Kumar Jha and the computer loan was sanctioned. Sri Santosh Kumar Jha, who was a material witness, was not produced by the Bank despite his name appearing in the list of witnesses.

The Enquiry Officer relied upon document E 3/101 to record that a computer loan of Rs.50,000/- had been sanctioned against margin money of Rs.14,500/- in the account of Sri Santosh Kumar Jha. The petitioner submits that this document itself negated the allegation of misappropriation. No witness stated that the amount was ever handed over to the petitioner or that it was not credited to the account of Sri Santosh Kumar Jha.

Charge No. III alleged misappropriation of Rs.67,000/- through an ATM imprest account at Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow. The petitioner denied any involvement and stated that the original ledger showing withdrawal and deposit had not been produced. There was also no evidence that the petitioner himself withdrew any amount through the ATM or failed to deposit any amount. The mere allegation that the petitioner was functioning as ATM Incharge along with the Head Cashier could not establish personal liability for withdrawals made by other employees.

Charge No.IV alleged that the petitioner removed bank records/documents to cover up the alleged misdeeds. The charge did not specify which documents or vouchers were allegedly removed by the petitioner or in what manner. The custodian responsible for maintaining the bank records was never produced to establish when or how any document became unavailable or whether any report regarding the alleged loss or removal had been made. The petitioner submits that the mere non-availability of documents could not establish their removal by him.

The Enquiry Officer ultimately concluded that all the charges were proved, despite the absence of cogent evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged transactions. Heavy reliance was placed upon Management Witness No.1, who had never been posted in the concerned branches during the relevant period and had no direct knowledge of the alleged incidents. The petitioner submits that the findings were contrary to the material on record and amounted to findings based on suspicion and conjecture.

The petitioner specifically raised all these objections in his representation dated 24.09.2012 against the enquiry report. He pointed out that the original documents had not been produced, the duplicate/photocopy documents were disputed, the authors of documents had not been examined, material witnesses had not been produced, and the Management Witnesses relied upon by the department were not competent witnesses having direct knowledge of the relevant incidents. The Disciplinary Authority did not consider these objections while passing the dismissal order dated 01.11.2012.

The same material grounds were raised by the petitioner in his departmental appeal dated 18.01.2013, but the Appellate Authority also failed to consider and deal with them and rejected the appeal by the cryptic order dated 27.03.2014.

The petitioner submits that the enquiry report was prepared with a pre-determined approach that the petitioner had committed the alleged misconduct and that the burden was upon him to disprove the charges. Instead of requiring the Presenting Officer to establish the charges through admissible and reliable evidence, the Enquiry Officer accepted the allegations as established and expected the petitioner to disprove them.

The Enquiry Officer also assumed the role of the prosecuting officer by attempting to justify the management's case in the enquiry report rather than objectively determining whether the charges had been established on the evidence produced. The objections raised by the petitioner regarding the genuineness and admissibility of documents and the competence of the witnesses were not properly considered.

The disciplinary proceedings were also conducted in violation of Clause 20 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977, which provides:

The entire disciplinary enquiry culminating in the dismissal order was, therefore, conducted without affording the petitioner a proper and effective opportunity to defend himself. The original documents were not produced despite repeated demands, material defence witnesses were not summoned, relevant management witnesses were not produced, and objections regarding the genuineness and proof of documents were not properly considered.

The dismissal order dated 01.11.2012 was passed mechanically without proper application of mind to the petitioner's representation against the enquiry report. The order proceeded on the basis that the charges stood proved and did not properly address the material objections raised by the petitioner. The forfeiture of salary for the suspension period, except the subsistence allowance already paid, and treatment of the suspension period as not spent on duty were also imposed without affording the petitioner a separate effective opportunity in accordance with law.

The appellate order dated 27.03.2014 likewise failed to consider the specific grounds raised by the petitioner and merely recorded that he had failed to disprove the charges by bringing fresh facts on record. The Appellate Authority did not independently examine the justification or proportionality of the penalty or the violations of natural justice alleged by the petitioner.

The petitioner submits that the entire disciplinary proceedings, enquiry report, dismissal order and appellate order are arbitrary, perverse and contrary to the material on record. The charges were treated as proved without cogent, relevant and duly proved evidence and the petitioner was effectively required to establish his innocence rather than the department being required to prove the charges.

The petitioner further submits that the entire disciplinary proceedings and punishment order are contrary to the applicable statutory provisions and violate the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been punished on the basis of suspicion and unproved documents despite repeatedly requesting production and verification of the originals.

The petitioner has throughout maintained an excellent service record and submits that he was falsely implicated in the alleged charges. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 01.11.2012 and the appellate order dated 27.03.2014 and having no other equally effective and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court seeking appropriate relief against the impugned orders.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present petition challenges the validity of the order of dismissal dated 10.11.2012/01.11.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority/Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment in terms of Regulation 4(j) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The entire salary for the period of suspension was also forfeited, except the subsistence allowance already paid and the suspension period was treated as not spent on duty. The order was communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 27.11.2012 and received by him on 07.12.2012 and has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

He submitted that the aforesaid dismissal order was passed mechanically, without proper application of mind and without affording the petitioner a meaningful opportunity to establish his defence. The points and objections specifically raised by the petitioner during the disciplinary proceedings were not duly considered. The recital and findings contained in the impugned order are contrary to the material available on record. The present case is, therefore, a case of “no evidence”, since none of the charges levelled against the petitioner was established by cogent, relevant and duly proved evidence. The charges appear to have been treated as proved at the outset and the burden was effectively placed upon the petitioner to disprove them.

The petitioner also challenges the appellate order dated 27.03.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority/General Manager, PAD, rejecting the petitioner's appeal. The said order was served upon the petitioner in April, 2014 and has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal primarily on the ground that the petitioner had failed to disprove the charges by bringing any fresh fact on record. Such an approach demonstrates non-application of mind, as the Appellate Authority was required to consider the appeal in terms of Regulation 17 of the 1977 Regulations and to independently examine the legality and correctness of the findings as well as whether the penalty imposed was excessive or inadequate. The issue of violation of natural justice was also not considered.

He submitted that the petitioner was suspended in the year 1999 and, after a lapse of approximately three years, was served with the charge-sheet dated 29.04.2002 on 05.05.2002. The charge-sheet was issued under the signatures of the Zonal Manager, East U.P. Zone, as the Disciplinary Authority under Regulation 6 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The charges contained in the charge-sheet were vague and indistinct and no adequate factual or documentary basis was disclosed, making it impossible for the petitioner to submit an effective written statement of defence merely against contour allegations. The petitioner accordingly submitted representations dated 08.05.2002 and 24.06.2002 seeking supply of documents, including documents referred to in the charge-sheet and other documents necessary for his defence. The petitioner submitted a list of 48 documents and his representation dated 24.06.2002 has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Despite the aforesaid request, the Enquiry Officer did not supply the documents and instead fixed 08.07.2002 as the date of preliminary hearing vide letter dated 24.06.2002, which was served upon the petitioner on 30.06.2002.

Subsequently, Sri U.S. Awasthi was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 12.12.2007. Since Sri U.S. Awasthi was involved in the matter and had framed the charge-sheet against the petitioner, the petitioner apprehended bias and requested change of the Enquiry Officer. The request was accepted and Sri Deepak Dave, Senior Manager, Branch Office, Lalbagh, Lucknow, was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 06.02.2008. The Enquiry Officer thereafter fixed 18.02.2008 as the date of enquiry. The Petitioner repeatedly requested supply of the documents demanded by him. By representations dated 04.05.2008 and 11.05.2008, the petitioner pointed out that the documents had still not been supplied and that he had not received proper intimation regarding the enquiry proceedings. Despite these requests, the enquiry was proceeded with in the absence of the petitioner, including the proceedings dated 09.05.2008 and the Enquiry Officer closed the petitioner's opportunity of cross-examination. The petitioner objected to the manner in which the enquiry was being conducted and pointed out that the proceedings were being held behind his back without supplying the documents necessary for his defence.

On 21.06.2008, the petitioner specifically objected to the enquiry being conducted behind his back and without providing the documents and opportunities required at various stages of the disciplinary enquiry. The objection was not meaningfully considered and the enquiry was again proceeded with, including examination of the Management Witness-3 behind the back of the petitioner.

Being aggrieved by the continuous denial of documents and the manner in which the enquiry was being proceeded with, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1324 (S/B) of 2008, which was decided on 21.02.2012. This Hon'ble Court specifically held that the documents demanded by the Petitioner were liable to be supplied to him, without which the Petitioner could not effectively defend himself. The judgment and order dated 21.02.2012 has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner proceed on the foundational assumption that the Petitioner was functioning as a “System Administrator” at B.O. Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow and B.O. Mahanagar, Lucknow. The statement of imputation appended to the charge-sheet dated 29.04.2002 specifically records:

He submitted that the petitioner was never appointed, designated or posted as System Administrator by any formal order of the Respondent Bank. The Respondent Bank has not produced any office order, posting order or other contemporaneous document showing that the petitioner was appointed as System Administrator. Significantly, none of the Management Witnesses produced during the enquiry stated that any such appointment or designation had ever been made in favour of the petitioner.

He submitted that the error is further established from the Bank's own Handbook of Computerization of Branches dated 28.01.1995, according to which the post of System Administrator could only be assigned to an officer not below Scale-II. The petitioner was an Officer Grade-I/Assistant Manager in Scale-I. Thus, in the absence of any specific order and having regard to the Bank's own rules, the petitioner could not have been saddled with duties and liabilities specifically attached to a System Administrator.

He submitted that a disciplinary charge founded upon a factual status, which the employee never possessed is legally unsustainable. The Respondent cannot attribute to the petitioner statutory, regulatory or departmental duties attached to a post which he was neither appointed to nor authorized to hold. Consequently, even assuming that any irregularity had occurred in the functioning of the computer system, the same could not automatically be attributed to the petitioner.

He submitted that the question whether the petitioner was ever posted or appointed as System Administrator was not merely an internal departmental controversy. The said issue was specifically adjudicated by a competent Civil Court in Regular Suit No. 117/1999, decided on 05.12.2008 by the learned 1st Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow. An issue was specifically framed regarding the petitioner's alleged appointment/posting as System Administrator and the same was decided against such appointment.

He submitted that the Respondent Bank preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 14/2009 against the aforesaid decree, which was dismissed on 26.07.2013. The judicial finding consequently attained finality between the parties. The Respondent Bank, having failed to establish the petitioner's appointment as System Administrator before the competent Civil Court, could not thereafter sustain a disciplinary finding by proceeding on the very same foundational fact as though it stood established.

He submitted that the principle applicable is not merely one of technical res judicata but also the fundamental principle that a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate on a foundational factual issue, which has already been conclusively adjudicated by a competent court between the same parties. The disciplinary authority was, at the very least, required to take the binding judicial finding into consideration before attributing duties of System Administrator to the petitioner.

He submitted that the failure to consider the aforesaid binding judicial finding renders the disciplinary findings vulnerable on the ground of jurisdictional error, perversity and non-application of mind. The very foundation upon which several allegations were constructed having disappeared, the consequential findings could not legally survive.

He submitted that the petitioner repeatedly sought relevant documents for the purpose of effectively defending himself. The charge-sheet contained vague and indistinct allegations and did not furnish sufficient particulars enabling the petitioner to answer the charges effectively. The petitioner accordingly submitted representations dated 08.05.2002 and 24.06.2002 and furnished a list of 48 documents required for his defence.

He submitted that the dispute regarding supply of documents ultimately resulted in Writ Petition No.1324 (S/B) of 2008 before this Hon'ble Court, wherein vide judgment and order dated 21.02.2012, this Hon'ble Court specifically recognized the necessity of the documents for the petitioner's defence and directed that relevant documents be supplied or, where supply was not practically possible for a valid reason, inspection thereof be permitted. He submitted that the aforesaid direction was not complied with in its true spirit. Although the petitioner submitted a detailed chart specifying the documents required, their relevance and the charges to which they related, several documents were declared unavailable. Even thereafter, when the petitioner disputed the genuineness of photostat copies and sought inspection and production of the originals, the request was refused.

He submitted that the denial of documents cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity, where the documents are directly connected with the allegations and are required to enable the delinquent employee to test the Management's case. The prejudice in the present case is manifest because the Enquiry Officer ultimately relied upon documentary material whose authenticity was disputed and whose originals were not produced.

He submitted that the denial of documents assumes greater significance in the present case because the charges themselves were sought to be established primarily through old records, vouchers, ledgers, transaction documents and computer-related records. Without access to the primary records, the petitioner was effectively deprived of the opportunity to test the authenticity, authorship, signatures and contents of the documents relied upon against him.

He submitted that the Enquiry Officer relied upon photostat/duplicate documents despite the petitioner's specific objection regarding their genuineness and despite his demand for production of the originals. Where the delinquent employee specifically disputes the authenticity of a document and the document is relied upon as substantive evidence to establish misconduct, the disciplinary authority cannot mechanically treat an unproved copy as conclusive proof.

He submitted that the Respondent-Bank also failed to produce the authors, custodians or attesting officers of several documents relied upon against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to test the authorship and authenticity of such documents through cross-examination.

He submitted that the defect is not cured merely because the proceedings are departmental in nature. Though strict rules of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in their entirety to departmental proceedings, the findings must nevertheless be based upon material, which has some probative value and upon which a reasonable person could legitimately conclude that the charge stands established.

He submitted that where the primary documents are withheld, their authenticity is disputed, their authors are not examined and the substitute photostat copies are relied upon without proper foundation, the resulting finding becomes vulnerable as a finding based upon no legally relevant or reliable evidence.

He submitted that the disciplinary authority and the Enquiry Officer have failed to distinguish between an allegation, a suspicion and proof of misconduct. The charges appear to have been treated as established first and the petitioner was, thereafter, expected to disprove them. Such reversal of the burden of establishing the charge is contrary to the basic requirement of a disciplinary enquiry.

He submitted that the Management examined only four witnesses. None of them provided direct and reliable evidence establishing the petitioner's involvement in the alleged acts. MW-I, Sri A.C. Ghosh, admitted that he had never worked with the petitioner at the concerned branches and had never been posted at Mahanagar Branch during the relevant period.

He submitted that despite the aforesaid admission, the Enquiry Officer treated MW-I as a reliable and material witness and proceeded on the reasoning contained under the heading “Reliability of the Deposition of MW-1”. The approach adopted by the Enquiry Officer is legally unsustainable because the inability of the petitioner to extract something adverse from a witness cannot itself establish the reliability or relevance of that witness.

He submitted that it was the Management which was required to produce the relevant witnesses and establish the charges. The petitioner was not required to prove a negative or to disprove allegations which had not first been established by reliable evidence.

He also submitted that the primary complainant, Sri S.K. Jha, was never examined to prove the allegation forming the basis of Charge-II. Similarly, the authors or attesting officers of disputed financial documents were not produced. The absence of such material witnesses assumes importance because the charges depended upon establishing who prepared, passed, authorized or authenticated the relevant transactions.

He submitted that MW-II also gave evidence inconsistent with the evidence of MW-I regarding signatures on the relevant documents. The petitioner himself denied the signatures. In such circumstances, production of the originals and examination of the appropriate persons acquainted with the documents assumed direct relevance. The failure to do so renders the finding unsafe.

He submitted that in respect of Account No.16488, the allegation was that the petitioner reopened a closed account and altered its name. However, the material relied upon by the Enquiry Officer itself shows that the account had been closed on 11.02.1994, whereas the petitioner was posted at Mahanagar Branch only in October, 1994. There is, therefore, no evidence connecting the petitioner with the opening or closing of the said account.

He submitted that even with respect to the alleged debit transaction of Rs.15,000/-, the petitioner's signatures on the relevant vouchers E 3/6 and E 3/7 were denied. MW-I could not identify the signatures of the passing or attesting officials. The following questions and answers recorded during cross-examination are material:

He submitted that similarly, in respect of documents E 3/8 and E 3/9, the Management Witnesses could not reliably identify the petitioner's signatures. The Enquiry Officer failed to properly deal with this material aspect of cross-examination and nevertheless held the allegation proved. Such a finding ignores material evidence and is, therefore, perverse.

He submitted that in relation to Saving Fund Account No.18646, the Management failed to produce evidence showing that the petitioner prepared or signed the documents relating to the alleged transactions. The denial of the balancing team members as defence witnesses further deprived the petitioner of evidence directly relevant to the alleged transactions.

He also submitted that Charge-II alleged misappropriation of Rs.14,500/- said to have been given to the petitioner by Sri S.K. Jha as margin money for sanction of a term loan of Rs.50,000/-. However, the admitted factual position is that the margin money was credited to the account, the loan was sanctioned and the computer and accessories were purchased. Significantly, the person who allegedly gave the money to the petitioner, namely Sri S.K. Jha, was not examined by the Management despite being a material witness. The charge could not, therefore, be established merely through secondary or hearsay material.

His submission is that in the absence of the material complainant, and particularly when the basic allegation of misappropriation is inconsistent with the subsequent sanction and utilization of the loan, the finding on Charge-II could not reasonably have been recorded against the petitioner.

He further submitted that Charge-III alleged misappropriation of Rs.67,000/- through ATM transactions. There is no finding based upon evidence that the petitioner himself withdrew the said amount or that any particular amount withdrawn by him was not deposited. The petitioner cannot be held personally liable for every transaction undertaken by other employees merely because he was functioning as In-charge ATM along with the Head Cashier. The Management was required to establish the particular transaction, the person who withdrew the money, the petitioner's role therein and the specific duty which he failed to discharge.

His submission is that the original ledger and primary records relating to the alleged ATM withdrawals and deposits were not produced and proved. In absence of such material evidence, the finding against the petitioner rests upon assumption and cannot constitute proof of misconduct.

His submission is that Charge-IV alleging removal of bank records/documents to cover up the alleged misconduct is vague. The Respondent-Bank had a designated custodian responsible for maintenance and preservation of records, yet the said custodian was not produced to establish when the records went missing, from whose custody they went missing, or what steps were taken upon discovery of their absence. The Enquiry Officer relied upon the statement of MW-I regarding missing documents even though MW-I admittedly had no relevant posting or direct knowledge of the branch during the relevant period. Such evidence could not establish that the petitioner had removed the records, much less that he had done so with an intention to conceal misconduct.

He submitted that the petitioner's request dated 04.07.2012 for summoning defence witnesses, including Sri Kamal Kant, Sri D.S. Hayanki and Sri Sunil Pandey, was arbitrarily rejected. The said witnesses were members of the balancing team and were directly relevant to the transactions and balancing work relied upon in the charges. The reason given for refusing to summon Sri Kamal Kant and Sri D.S. Hayanki, namely that their names had not appeared in exhibited documents, is wholly insufficient. The relevance of a defence witness cannot be determined merely by whether his name happens to appear in a Management document. The relevant consideration is whether his evidence could assist the delinquent employee in answering the charges.

He submitted that the denial of these witnesses caused actual and substantial prejudice to the petitioner, particularly because the Management itself failed to produce witnesses capable of proving the relevant transactions. The enquiry was, therefore, conducted in a manner which materially impaired the petitioner's right of defence.

He submitted that Regulation 20 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 provides as under:

He also submitted that in the present case, notices were repeatedly sent in such a manner that they were received after the date fixed for enquiry. The Enquiry Officer also acknowledged that notices sent by registered/speed post had been returned undelivered. Despite such knowledge, the enquiry was proceeded with in the absence of the petitioner, including examination of Management Witnesses. The proceedings conducted in the absence of the delinquent employee, despite knowledge that notice had not been effectively served, defeat the very purpose of an opportunity of hearing. The subsequent conclusion of the enquiry cannot, therefore, be sustained merely by asserting that notices had technically been dispatched.

He submitted that the alleged incidents relate to the period between 1994 and 1998. The petitioner was suspended in 1999, but the charge-sheet was issued only on 29.04.2002. No satisfactory explanation for the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings has been furnished. The delay in disciplinary proceedings assumes particular significance where the defence depends upon old records, witnesses and documents. In the present case, several documents were subsequently declared unavailable, relevant witnesses were not produced and the petitioner was denied access to primary records. The prejudice caused by the delay is, therefore, not merely theoretical but demonstrable from the record itself.

His submission is that the unexplained delay, coupled with the subsequent non-availability of relevant records and denial of defence evidence, has materially impaired the petitioner's ability to defend himself and renders the disciplinary proceedings unfair.

He submitted that the Enquiry Officer was required to objectively assess whether the Management had established each charge on the basis of evidence produced during the enquiry. Instead, the approach adopted demonstrates that the allegations were treated as established and the petitioner was required to disprove them. The Enquiry Officer went further by seeking to justify the relevance and reliability of Management Witness-I despite his admitted lack of direct knowledge. The Enquiry Officer's approach effectively supplemented the deficiencies in the Management's evidence instead of examining whether the Presenting Officer had discharged the burden of establishing the charges. An Enquiry Officer cannot fill the evidentiary gaps in the Management's case by drawing presumptions in favour of the prosecution or by requiring the delinquent employee to establish his innocence. Therefore, the findings recorded through such an approach are legally unsustainable.

He submitted that the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the material objections raised by the petitioner, including the absence of evidence, denial of documents, non-production of originals, non-examination of material witnesses, denial of defence witnesses, defective service of notices and the foundational error regarding his alleged designation as System Administrator. The Disciplinary Authority mechanically accepted the enquiry findings without independently considering whether the charges were actually established by reliable evidence. The penalty of dismissal, being the severest punishment, required a careful consideration of the entire record and the proportionality of the penalty.

His submission is that the Appellate Authority was equally required under Regulation 17 to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner and independently examine the correctness of the findings and the proportionality of punishment. Instead, the appeal was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had failed to bring any fresh fact to disprove the charges. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed because the initial burden was upon the Management to establish the charges. The appellate order is consequently cryptic and non-speaking. It does not deal with the petitioner's specific objections regarding perversity, violation of natural justice, denial of documents, denial of defence witnesses, non-production of originals and the petitioner's alleged appointment as System Administrator. Such failure to consider material grounds vitiates the appellate decision.

His submission is that the same set of allegations also resulted in registration of FIR bearing Case Crime No. 72 of 1999 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Husainganj, District Lucknow, in respect of which the petitioner was tried in W.S. Case No. 2500939 of 2012. Vide judgment and order dated 24.03.2026, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No. 25, Lucknow acquitted the petitioner. The said judgment has been brought on record as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 09.04.2026.

He submitted that although the disciplinary and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields, the subsequent acquittal is a relevant circumstance when the disciplinary findings themselves suffer from the absence of primary evidence, non-examination of material witnesses and reliance upon disputed documents. The said judgment is, therefore, required to be considered along with the entire record while examining whether the impugned disciplinary findings can legitimately be sustained.

He submitted that the cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances demonstrates that the disciplinary proceedings were not a fair adjudication of the charges. The Management failed to establish the foundational fact that the Petitioner was a System Administrator; relevant documents were not supplied; original documents were not produced; disputed photostat copies were relied upon; material witnesses were not examined; defence witnesses were denied; proceedings were conducted without effective notice; and the Enquiry Officer placed the burden upon the petitioner to disprove allegations which had not been established by the Management.

He submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are, therefore, perverse in the legal sense, as they disregard material evidence and rely upon evidence incapable of establishing the alleged misconduct. A finding which no reasonable person could arrive at on the material available on record is liable to judicial interference.

His submission is that the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority failed to cure these fundamental defects and mechanically affirmed the conclusions of the enquiry. The impugned orders consequently suffer from violation of principles of natural justice, perversity, non-application of mind and failure to comply with the governing Regulations. The following authorities are relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforesaid legal submissions:

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid submissions, the impugned disciplinary proceedings and the consequential orders cannot be sustained in law. The proceedings are fundamentally vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity, non-compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court, reliance upon unproved and disputed documents, non-examination of material witnesses, denial of defence evidence, absence of evidence connecting the Petitioner with the alleged misconduct, perversity of findings and failure of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities to independently apply their minds. Therefore, the impugned dismissal order dated 01.11.2012/10.11.2012, the appellate order dated 27.03.2014 and the enquiry report are liable to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner is consequently entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including back wages, in accordance with law.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. The petitioner seeks to assail the disciplinary proceedings, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the order of punishment passed by the competent disciplinary authority and the order passed by the appellate authority. The proceedings, however, were conducted in accordance with the applicable service regulations and after affording the petitioner adequate and reasonable opportunity of defending himself.

He further submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner arose out of serious financial irregularities and unauthorized banking transactions committed during his tenure. The charges were founded upon documentary as well as oral evidence produced during the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the evidence available on record and the defence of the petitioner, recorded findings on the charges. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, considered the enquiry record and passed the punishment order in accordance with the applicable regulations.

He submitted that the petitioner was afforded repeated opportunities during the course of the enquiry to participate, inspect documents, cross-examine management witnesses and submit his defence. The record itself demonstrates that the petitioner extensively participated in the proceedings, including by putting a substantial number of questions to the management witnesses. Consequently, the allegation that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity or that the principles of natural justice were violated is unsustainable.

He further submitted that the petitioner was proceeded against for serious acts of financial irregularity and unauthorized transactions involving the funds of the Bank. The charges were considered in the departmental enquiry on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner was suspended in accordance with the applicable service regulations and departmental proceedings were thereafter initiated. The disciplinary authority, being the competent authority, considered the enquiry report and the material available on record before passing the order of punishment. The petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry, including opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses. The extent of his participation in the proceedings itself demonstrates that he was not denied an opportunity of defence.

He submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s appeal was not arbitrary but was made by the competent appellate authority after consideration of the material available on record and the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is, however, submitted that the petitioner cannot claim immunity from disciplinary action merely on the basis of his previous service record. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated in respect of the specific charges levelled against him and the punishment was imposed on account of the misconduct found proved in the departmental enquiry. It is submitted that the criminal proceedings/FIR referred to by the petitioner arose out of the alleged financial irregularities and unauthorized transactions forming part of the subject matter. The initiation of such proceedings does not invalidate the departmental proceedings, which were independently conducted under the applicable service regulations.

He submitted that the suspension of the petitioner was an administrative/disciplinary measure taken in accordance with the applicable service regulations and did not amount to imposition of the final penalty. The allegation that the petitioner was deprived of relevant documents is incorrect. The documents considered relevant for the enquiry and referred to in the charge-sheet were made available to the petitioner in accordance with the procedure applicable to the departmental proceedings. The petitioner was also afforded opportunities to inspect the relevant records. The allegation of denial of documents, therefore, cannot be accepted merely on the basis of a general assertion unsupported by identification of any particular document which was material to the defence and whose non-supply caused prejudice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the departmental charges related to serious irregularities in the Bank's records and transactions. The relevance of the documents and the evidence produced in the enquiry was considered by the Enquiry Officer while determining the charges. The issues raised by the petitioner were considered in the earlier proceedings before this Hon’ble Court and the orders passed therein operate in accordance with law.

He further submitted that the charges against the petitioner were based upon the material produced during the departmental enquiry and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report dealt with the charges on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The mere allegation of bias, without establishing any actual prejudice or violation of the prescribed procedure, does not render the enquiry invalid. The record demonstrates that the petitioner was granted repeated opportunities to participate in the enquiry. The representation dated 15.02.2008 was not received by the Enquiry Officer before the proceedings held on 18.02.2008. Upon receipt of the said representation, the petitioner was informed of the subsequent date fixed for the enquiry. Proceedings conducted, thereafter, were also communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot rely upon his own failure to participate on particular dates to contend that the enquiry was conducted in violation of natural justice. Adequate opportunity was afforded to him to participate, cross-examine witnesses and present his defence.

He next submitted that the enquiry was conducted after affording the petitioner reasonable opportunity of defence. The Enquiry Officer considered the defence taken by the petitioner along with the evidence produced during the proceedings. The petitioner was permitted to inspect relevant documents and was afforded opportunities to place his defence. The enquiry was also required to be concluded within the period stipulated by the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 21.02.2012. The Enquiry Officer proceeded accordingly while continuing to afford the petitioner opportunity to participate and represent his case. The petitioner had been granted opportunities on several dates to inspect and verify the relevant documents. The subsequent demand for documents, particularly at an advanced stage of the enquiry, was considered in the context of the material already made available and the requirement to conclude the proceedings within the time directed by this Hon’ble Court. There was, therefore, no denial of a reasonable opportunity of defence.

He submitted that on 02.05.2012, at the request of the petitioner, time was granted to enable him to submit his defence. The enquiry was, thereafter, fixed on successive dates, but the petitioner did not appear on the dates fixed. The Enquiry Officer nevertheless afforded further opportunity before proceeding further in accordance with the applicable procedure. The petitioner cannot contend that the enquiry was conducted ex parte without opportunity when the record demonstrates that repeated opportunities were afforded to him. The allegations subsequently made against the Enquiry Officer were not supported by any material establishing bias or denial of fair hearing.

He submitted that the management witnesses were examined during the enquiry and were subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner. The petitioner’s challenge to the competence or familiarity of the witnesses with the relevant facts does not, by itself, render their evidence inadmissible or unreliable. The evidentiary value of their testimony was a matter for consideration by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the entire enquiry record. The evidence on record also supported the petitioner’s role and responsibilities as System Administrator/Data Base Administrator, as relied upon by the Enquiry Officer.

He submitted that the findings of misconduct were not based upon the number of witnesses alone but upon the cumulative effect of the documentary and oral evidence produced during the enquiry. The petitioner’s contention regarding non-availability of certain old records does not, by itself, establish that the charges were unsupported by evidence. The Enquiry Officer was required to consider the material actually produced before him and the findings were recorded on the basis of the evidence available on the enquiry record. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been afforded opportunities to inspect the relevant documents and raise his objections during the enquiry.

He next submitted that the request for defence witnesses was considered in the light of the relevance of the proposed witnesses to the charges under enquiry. The petitioner was afforded opportunity to present his defence in accordance with the applicable regulations. The mere non-production of a witness does not establish violation of natural justice, particularly where the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to identify and produce relevant defence evidence.

He submitted that the management witnesses and documentary material relied upon during the enquiry supported the finding regarding the petitioner’s role as System Administrator/Data Base Administrator and his access to the relevant banking system. The findings were based upon the evidence produced during the enquiry and not upon any extraneous consideration. He submitted that the charges were considered on the basis of documentary as well as oral evidence. The fact that certain documents were computer-generated does not, by itself, render the material incapable of being considered in departmental proceedings. Their evidentiary value was considered along with the testimony of the management witnesses and the other material available on record.

He submitted that the allegation that the proceedings were biased or that the Enquiry Officer mechanically accepted the case of the management is unsupported by the enquiry record. The principal charges concerning unauthorized alteration of accounts, fictitious credits and unauthorized transactions were considered by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the documentary evidence and the depositions of the management witnesses. The evidence on record supported the finding that the petitioner had access to and performed functions relating to the relevant banking system and that transactions forming the subject matter of the charges were carried out using the relevant IDs/system access attributed to him. The petitioner’s challenge to individual entries or documents essentially seeks re-appreciation of the evidence, which cannot be undertaken as an appellate exercise in writ jurisdiction unless the findings are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence.

He submitted that the documentary evidence and testimony of the management witnesses were considered by the Enquiry Officer while determining the petitioner’s role in the transactions forming the subject matter of the charges. The petitioner’s denial of having performed the functions of Data Base Administrator/System Administrator is contrary to the material considered during the enquiry. The findings were recorded on the basis of the enquiry record and cannot be displaced merely by a contrary assertion made in the writ petition. The petitioner’s challenge to the transactions relating to the relevant accounts, fixed deposits and pay order similarly involves appreciation of evidence, which had already been undertaken by the Enquiry Officer. The charges relating to unauthorized financial transactions and the handling of Bank funds were supported by documentary evidence and the evidence of the management witnesses. The Enquiry Officer considered the material placed before him and recorded findings in respect of the charges. The petitioner had opportunity to contest the evidence during the enquiry.

He submitted that as regards missing or unavailable records, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any particular material document, indispensable to his defence, was deliberately withheld by the respondents and that such non-availability caused actual prejudice to him. The appellate authority considered the appeal preferred by the petitioner and rejected the same on merits. The Enquiry Officer arrived at his conclusions on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence led during the enquiry. The allegation that the Enquiry Officer merely accepted the submissions of the Presenting Officer is specifically denied. The enquiry report reflects consideration of the evidence and the defence of the petitioner.

He submitted that the allegation that the disciplinary proceedings were based on no evidence is contrary to the enquiry record. The notices issued during the enquiry were sent through the prescribed modes and the petitioner was informed of the dates fixed for the proceedings. The punishment order was passed by the competent authority on the basis of the charges found proved in the departmental enquiry. The grounds raised by the petitioner do not disclose any jurisdictional error, violation of the applicable service regulations, denial of reasonable opportunity, perversity in the findings, or any other ground warranting interference with the disciplinary action.

He further submitted that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable regulations. The petitioner was informed of the charges and was afforded opportunity to participate in the enquiry, inspect relevant documents, cross-examine management witnesses and submit his defence. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The record demonstrates repeated opportunities granted to the petitioner. Mere non-participation on particular dates or dissatisfaction with the manner in which his requests were dealt with does not establish denial of reasonable opportunity.

He further submitted that the findings were based on evidence. The Enquiry Officer considered documentary material as well as oral evidence of management witnesses. The petitioner’s challenge essentially seeks re-appreciation of such evidence.

He also submitted that the disciplinary authority was competent to impose the punishment. After considering the enquiry report and the material on record, the competent disciplinary authority passed the punishment order in accordance with the applicable service regulations. The appellate authority independently considered the petitioner’s appeal. The rejection of the appeal cannot be termed arbitrary merely because the appellate authority did not accept the petitioner’s contentions. The petitioner has failed to establish prejudice. Even where a procedural objection is raised, interference is not warranted in the absence of demonstration that the alleged procedural irregularity caused substantial prejudice to the petitioner’s defence.

He submitted that the seriousness of the misconduct is relevant to the punishment. The charges concerned financial irregularities and unauthorized transactions involving Bank funds. The misconduct, as found proved in the departmental enquiry, was of a nature having a direct bearing upon the integrity and trust reposed in an officer of a banking institution. The previous service record does not extinguish the misconduct proved in the disciplinary proceedings. The punishment was imposed with reference to the charges established against the petitioner and not merely on the basis of his previous service record.

He submitted that the writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be converted into an appellate forum over disciplinary findings. Unless the petitioner establishes violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, findings based on no evidence, perversity, or some other recognised ground for judicial review, the findings recorded by the competent departmental authorities do not warrant interference. No case for interference with the punishment order or appellate order is made out. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any legally sustainable ground warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Hon’ble Court.

He lastly submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The impugned disciplinary order and the order passed by the appellate authority having been passed by the competent authorities in accordance with the applicable regulations and on the basis of the material available on record, no interference by this Hon’ble Court is warranted. The writ petition may, therefore, kindly be dismissed. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon following judgments:

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as law reports cited by learned counsel for the parties.

To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, relevant portion of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties as being quoted below:

Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the material available on record, the enquiry proceedings, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellate order, the earlier proceedings between the parties and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank, I am of the considered opinion that the controversy in the present writ petition cannot be resolved merely by invoking the settled principle that the scope of judicial review over disciplinary proceedings is limited.

There can be no quarrel with the proposition that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, does not ordinarily sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence as if exercising appellate jurisdiction. Equally well settled is the principle that where a disciplinary enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the applicable rules, principles of natural justice have been duly observed and the findings are supported by some legally relevant evidence, the writ court ordinarily would not substitute its own view for that of the disciplinary authority.

At the same time, the aforesaid limitation upon the exercise of judicial review cannot be stretched to the extent of immunising an enquiry which is fundamentally contrary to the requirements of natural justice or findings which are based upon no evidence, irrelevant material, conjectures or assumptions. The jurisdiction of this Court necessarily extends to examining whether the decision-making process was fair, whether the delinquent employee was afforded a meaningful opportunity of defence, whether the conclusions have a rational nexus with the evidence brought on record and whether the findings are such as could reasonably have been arrived at by a duly constituted disciplinary authority.

The judgment in the case of P. Gunasekaran (supra), relied upon in the proceedings, itself recognises that although the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence as a second court of first appeal, interference is permissible within the recognised parameters of judicial review, including where the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law or principles of natural justice, where the findings are based upon no evidence, or where the conclusion is one which no reasonable person could arrive at on the material available.

Tested on the aforesaid principles, I find that the present case does not involve a mere disagreement with the appreciation of evidence by the departmental authorities. The challenge strikes at the very foundation of the disciplinary proceedings. The material demonstrates denial of relevant documents, failure to produce originals despite specific objection, non-examination of material witnesses, denial of relevant defence evidence, proceeding upon a foundational fact which was not established by the management and failure on the part of the disciplinary and appellate authorities to deal meaningfully with the objections raised by the petitioner.

The first issue which assumes significance is the denial of documents. The petitioner had repeatedly demanded documents which, according to him, were necessary for an effective defence. The record placed before this Court shows that the petitioner submitted representations dated 08.05.2002 and 24.06.2002 and furnished a list of 48 documents. The dispute regarding the documents ultimately resulted in Writ Petition No.1324 (S/B) of 2008, wherein this Court, vide judgment and order dated 21.02.2012, directed that relevant documents be supplied and, where supply was not practicable for a valid reason, inspection thereof be permitted.

The importance of the said documents cannot be characterised as insignificant. The allegations against the petitioner were founded substantially upon old records, vouchers, ledgers, transaction documents and computer-related records. The petitioner disputed the genuineness of photocopies and specifically sought production and inspection of the originals. The supplied material records that the prejudice pleaded by the petitioner was that, without the primary records, he was deprived of the opportunity to test their authenticity, authorship, signatures and contents.

In the considered view, where the management relies upon documentary material as the foundation of a charge and the delinquent employee specifically disputes its authenticity and seeks the originals for the purposes of his defence, such request cannot be brushed aside as a technicality. The opportunity of defence must be real and effective. It is not sufficient that a delinquent employee is formally permitted to participate in an enquiry if, at the same time, material upon which the management relies is withheld from him.

The position becomes still more serious where this Court had already intervened in an earlier proceeding and directed the respondents to supply the relevant documents or permit inspection thereof. Compliance with such a judicial direction was not an optional matter. Once this Court had recognised the relevance of the documents to the petitioner's defence, the disciplinary proceedings were required to proceed consistently with that direction.

It is also found that the continued non-availability of relevant documents, coupled with refusal to permit adequate inspection of the originals despite specific dispute, materially impaired the petitioner's right of defence. The resulting prejudice cannot be regarded as speculative or imaginary. It is apparent from the nature of the charges and the manner in which the documentary material was subsequently relied upon.

The second issue relates to the foundational allegation that the petitioner was functioning as a System Administrator. The charge-sheet proceeded upon the premise that the alleged lapses had been committed by the petitioner while working as System Administrator at the concerned branches. The petitioner consistently denied that he had ever been appointed or posted as System Administrator. The management did not produce the office order or other contemporaneous documentary material establishing such appointment. The material further records that none of the four Management Witnesses stated that any office order had been issued appointing or recognising the petitioner as System Administrator.

The matter does not end there. The Bank itself had instituted Regular Suit No.117/1999 against the petitioner. An issue was framed in that suit as to whether the petitioner had ever been posted as System Administrator. The Civil Court decided the issue against the Bank, holding that the Bank had failed to establish that the petitioner had ever worked as System Administrator. The appeal preferred by the Bank, being Regular Civil Appeal No.14/2009, was dismissed on 26.07.2013. The supplied material records that the said finding consequently attained finality.

This Court is conscious that the technical doctrine of res judicata cannot be mechanically imported into every disciplinary proceeding. However, that is not the manner in which the issue is approached. The significance of the civil-court judgment is that the Bank had previously failed to establish, before a competent court, the very foundational fact which subsequently became the premise for attributing duties and lapses to the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings.

The disciplinary authorities were, therefore, required to consider the effect of the said adjudication. They could not simply assume the existence of a fact which was specifically denied by the petitioner, unsupported by an appointment order, inconsistent with the material relied upon by the petitioner and, importantly, had already been the subject matter of an adjudication between the parties.

The Bank's own Handbook of Computerization of Branches dated 28.01.1995 also assumes relevance. As recorded in the material, the handbook contemplated appointment of a System Administrator from officers not below Scale-II, whereas the petitioner was admittedly working in Scale-I. The handbook also contemplated issuance of an office order for such appointment. No such office order was produced by the Bank.

In these circumstances, the conclusion that the petitioner was functioning as System Administrator could not have been treated as an established fact merely by repeating the allegation in the charge-sheet. The management was required to establish the foundational fact through evidence. The burden could not be shifted upon the petitioner to establish that he was not occupying a post which the management itself had failed to establish that he occupied.

This assumes greater significance because several of the charges appear to have been constructed upon the duties allegedly attached to the post of System Administrator. Once the foundational fact itself is not established, the consequential findings attributing to the petitioner lapses associated with that post necessarily require independent evidentiary support. Such independent support has not been demonstrated from the material before this Court.

The third issue relates to the nature of the evidence upon which the findings of guilt have been recorded. The petitioner consistently disputed the genuineness of the photocopies and sought production of originals. The documents relied upon by the management were not, in the manner asserted by the petitioner, duly established through their authors or custodians. The supplied material records that the Management Witnesses did not establish the petitioner's connection with several of the disputed transactions in a manner sufficient to cure the deficiencies in the documentary evidence.

It is reiterated that departmental proceedings are not criminal trials and strict rules of evidence are not applied with the same rigidity. However, this does not mean that a document, merely because it has been placed on the enquiry record, automatically becomes substantive evidence of the misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee. There must be a reasonable evidentiary nexus between the document, the transaction and the employee against whom the charge is made.

The principle relied upon by the petitioner from the case of Roop Singh Negi (Supra) and Narinder Mohan Arya (Supra) is attracted on this aspect. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function and is required to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of material having evidentiary value. Suspicion, assumption or conjecture cannot be substituted for evidence. The material placed before us records the principle that the Enquiry Officer cannot fill the gaps in the management's case by shifting the burden upon the delinquent employee.

The fourth issue concerns the non-examination of material witnesses. In relation to the allegation concerning receipt of Rs.14,500/-, the person from whom the petitioner was allegedly said to have received the amount was not examined. The material relied upon also indicated that the amount stood credited in the account of the concerned person and that the computer loan had been sanctioned. In the absence of the testimony of the person allegedly making the payment, the mere existence of the relevant entry could not, without further evidence, establish personal receipt or misappropriation by the petitioner.

The petitioner had also sought examination of members of the balancing team, including Sri Kamal Kant and Sri D.S. Hayanki, whose evidence was stated to be relevant to the transactions and balancing of the Bank. The denial of such defence evidence is material because the petitioner was attempting to establish his defence through persons who had direct connection with the relevant records and balancing process.

The right of defence in a disciplinary proceeding necessarily includes the right to present relevant evidence. Such right is not absolute in the sense that every witness suggested by a delinquent employee must invariably be examined. However, where the proposed witnesses have an apparent connection with the very transactions forming the subject matter of the charge, their exclusion requires a justifiable reason. No such satisfactory justification is demonstrated from the material before this Court.

The fifth issue concerns the manner in which the enquiry proceeded on certain dates in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner had raised objections concerning notice, availability of documents and opportunity of defence. The material indicates that Management Witnesses were examined and the petitioner's opportunity to cross-examine them was closed despite these objections.

This Court does not hold that every proceeding conducted in the absence of a delinquent employee is necessarily invalid. Where an employee deliberately avoids the enquiry despite proper notice and adequate opportunity, the disciplinary authority is entitled to proceed in accordance with the applicable rules. The present case, however, cannot be examined in isolation from the continuing dispute concerning documents and the petitioner's ability to effectively defend himself. The denial of opportunity here was cumulative in effect.

The sixth issue concerns the specific charges. On a consideration of the material relating to Account No.16488, the chronology itself creates a serious difficulty for the management. The account had been closed on 11.02.1994, whereas the petitioner joined Mahanagar Branch only in October 1994. The petitioner disputed the vouchers and the signatures attributed to him. The evidence of Management Witness No.1, as recorded in the material, did not satisfactorily establish the petitioner's signatures on the disputed documents.

Where the basic chronology does not connect the employee with the transaction and the documents relied upon to create that connection are themselves disputed and not satisfactorily established, a finding of guilt cannot be sustained merely by referring to the existence of the account or transaction.

Similar considerations arise in relation to the other transactions forming part of the charges. The existence of an irregular entry or transaction in a Bank record is not, by itself, proof that the petitioner personally committed the alleged act. The departmental authorities were required to establish the link between the particular transaction and the particular act or omission of the petitioner.

The same principle applies to the allegations concerning the use of the System Administrator's user ID/password. The charge necessarily presupposes that the petitioner was authorised to function as System Administrator and possessed or used the relevant credentials. Once the foundational appointment itself is not established, the allegation of unauthorised use of the corresponding credentials requires independent proof. The material before us does not disclose such proof sufficient to sustain the finding.

Similarly, the allegations concerning the alleged payment, withdrawal, misappropriation or removal of Bank records cannot be established merely by showing that an irregularity occurred. It must further be established that the petitioner was responsible for that irregularity by reason of a particular act or omission attributable to him.

This Court, therefore, unable to accept the proposition that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are supported by sufficient evidence merely because certain documents and oral statements were placed on the enquiry record. The issue is not the quantity of material but its quality, relevance and nexus with the charges.

This Court also find substance in the petitioner's grievance that the approach adopted during the disciplinary proceedings effectively required him to disprove the allegations rather than requiring the management first to establish them. This approach is reflected particularly in the appellate reasoning, where the petitioner's failure to bring “fresh facts” to disprove the charges was treated as a reason for rejecting the appeal.

Such reasoning cannot be sustained. A delinquent employee's defence is required to be considered against the case established by the management. The burden does not shift merely because the employee has denied the allegations. The management must first establish the essential ingredients of the misconduct alleged.

This Court now turn to the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had submitted a detailed representation challenging the enquiry findings and specifically raising objections regarding non-supply of documents, non-production of originals, absence of evidence, non-examination of witnesses and the foundational issue concerning his alleged status as System Administrator.

The Disciplinary Authority was required to consider those objections independently. A disciplinary authority cannot merely reproduce or mechanically adopt the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer without examining whether the objections raised by the delinquent employee affect the sustainability of the findings. Where the very evidentiary foundation of the enquiry report is questioned, the disciplinary authority must demonstrate application of mind to that challenge.

The authority relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Vijay Singh Yadav v. Bhopal Development Authority (Supra) is relevant in this context. The principle emerging from the material supplied is that an order imposing punishment must disclose application of mind to the delinquent's representation and cannot mechanically adopt the enquiry report without dealing with the grounds raised against it.

The appellate order also does not cure these defects. The Appellate Authority was required to examine the grounds of appeal and determine whether the findings and punishment could legally be sustained. Instead, the reasoning substantially proceeds on the premise that the petitioner had failed to disprove the charges by producing fresh material. Such an approach does not constitute a proper consideration of the petitioner's challenge to the legality and evidentiary foundation of the enquiry.

This Court is equally unable to accept the Bank's reliance upon authorities laying down the proposition that a High Court should ordinarily refrain from interfering with disciplinary punishment. Those authorities undoubtedly represent settled law. But the proposition operates where the disciplinary process is otherwise lawful and the finding of misconduct is supported by relevant evidence. It cannot be invoked to sustain an enquiry which has itself been found to have proceeded in breach of natural justice or upon an evidentiary foundation which does not establish the alleged misconduct.

In particular, the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank concerning cases of admitted or clearly established misconduct stand on a materially different footing. As reflected in the supplied material, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Raghuda Shiva Shankar Prasad (Supra) involved a case where the delinquent employee had admitted the misconduct and the enquiry had been conducted in accordance with the applicable Regulations. The present case contains no such admission by the petitioner.

Likewise, the authorities concerning the limited interference with punishment, including the case of V. Ramana (Supra) and Ganesh Shanta Ram Sirur (Supra), cannot be applied mechanically. The principle that punishment should not ordinarily be interfered with once misconduct is proved is not in dispute. But the present case is anterior to that stage. Here the question is whether the misconduct itself was established through a fair procedure and legally relevant evidence. The issue of proportionality cannot arise in the abstract without a sustainable finding of misconduct.

The reliance upon the case of P. Gunasekaran (Supra) also does not advance its case beyond the proposition of limited judicial review. That very principle permits interference where the findings are based upon no evidence or the enquiry violates the requirements of natural justice. The present judgment is not founded upon a re-appreciation of evidence but upon the conclusion that the process by which the findings were reached suffered from the very defects recognised as warranting judicial review.

The authorities relied upon by the petitioner, particularly those concerning non-supply of relevant documents, evidentiary value of documents, natural justice, the burden of proof and non-application of mind, therefore, have direct relevance to the present controversy. The facts of the present case, as emerging from the record, satisfy the circumstances in which judicial review is warranted.

This Court, accordingly, record a categorical finding that the petitioner was not afforded a fair and effective opportunity of defence in the disciplinary proceedings. The denial of relevant documents, failure to make available the originals of disputed documents, failure to examine material witnesses and denial of relevant defence evidence, considered cumulatively, materially prejudiced the petitioner's defence.

This Court further records a categorical finding that the foundational fact that the petitioner was appointed or authorised to function as System Administrator was not established by the management through reliable evidence. The disciplinary findings proceeded upon that assumption notwithstanding the petitioner's categorical denial, absence of the relevant appointment order, the material contained in the Bank's own handbook and the civil-court adjudication referred to above.

The Court further finds that the findings of guilt cannot be sustained merely by reference to the existence of irregular transactions or documentary entries. The necessary nexus between the alleged irregularities and the petitioner has not been established in the manner required to sustain the disciplinary findings.

This Court further finds that the approach of the appellate authority in requiring the petitioner to disprove the charges by producing fresh material reflects an erroneous approach to the burden of proof. The management was required to establish the charges against the petitioner on the material led in the enquiry.

The cumulative effect of these findings is that the enquiry report cannot be sustained. This is not a case of a minor procedural irregularity which has caused no prejudice. The defects go to the root of the proceedings and have materially affected the petitioner's ability to defend himself as well as the evidentiary foundation upon which the findings of guilt rest.

Once the enquiry report is found to be unsustainable, the order of dismissal founded upon that report cannot survive. The Disciplinary Authority's order does not contain an independent foundation capable of sustaining the punishment after the enquiry findings are set aside.

The appellate order, being consequential upon and affirming the disciplinary order without properly addressing the grounds raised by the petitioner, is equally liable to be set aside.

We are conscious that in a case where an enquiry is set aside solely on account of a curable procedural defect, the employer may, depending upon the facts and the governing rules, be afforded an opportunity to hold a fresh enquiry. The present case, however, stands on a different footing. The defects are not confined to one procedural lapse. The findings themselves suffer from absence of a satisfactory evidentiary foundation, the proceedings proceeded upon an unestablished foundational fact, relevant documents were not made available, material witnesses were not examined, defence evidence was denied and the statutory/regulatory authorities failed to properly consider the petitioner's objections.

Further, the material before the Court demonstrates that the disciplinary proceedings have already remained pending for an exceptionally long period. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings over several years and was ultimately dismissed after prolonged litigation concerning the very documents and procedural safeguards necessary for his defence. In these circumstances, remitting the matter for another round of disciplinary proceedings on the same foundational deficiencies would not, in my considered view, advance the ends of justice.

This Court, therefore, hold that the petitioner has established a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned disciplinary action cannot be permitted to stand merely on the ground that the jurisdiction of this Court in disciplinary matters is limited. Limited judicial review does not mean absence of judicial review where the fundamental requirements of a fair disciplinary process have not been satisfied.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

The impugned order of dismissal dated 01.11.2012/10.11.2012, passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner, is hereby set aside. The consequential appellate order dated 27.03.2014, passed by the Appellate Authority, is also hereby set aside.

The findings recorded against the petitioner in the enquiry report, insofar as they form the basis of the aforesaid punishment, are also set aside. The disciplinary action founded upon the said findings shall consequently stand annulled.

The petitioner shall be treated as continuing in service with effect from the date from which the impugned order of dismissal operated, without any break in the continuity of his service. The respondents shall accordingly restore the petitioner's service status and make consequential corrections in his service record.

The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits flowing from restoration of his service, including continuity of service, fixation of pay, increments, seniority and other attendant benefits in accordance with the applicable service rules and regulations.

The respondents shall also determine and pay the monetary benefits legally consequential upon the setting aside of the dismissal, after giving due adjustment for amounts, if any, already paid to the petitioner for the corresponding period. The competent authority shall undertake the necessary calculation strictly in accordance with law.

The entire exercise of restoration of service, correction of service records, determination of consequential benefits and payment of admissible monetary benefits shall be completed within a period of three months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority.

This Court makes it clear that the relief granted to the petitioner is not founded upon sympathy or upon this Court substituting its own assessment of the evidence for that of the disciplinary authority. The relief follows from the categorical findings recorded herein that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from violation of principles of natural justice, denial of effective opportunity of defence, reliance upon an unestablished foundational fact, insufficiency of the evidentiary nexus connecting the petitioner with the alleged misconduct, and failure of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities to properly apply their minds to the petitioner's objections.

The judgments relied upon by the respondent-Bank laying down the principle of restraint in matters of disciplinary punishment shall not alter the aforesaid conclusion, as those authorities operate in the context of disciplinary proceedings where the misconduct has been established through a legally sustainable process. They cannot be read as laying down a proposition that a finding based upon no reliable evidence or reached in breach of natural justice is immune from judicial review.

On the other hand, the principles emerging from the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner concerning reasonable opportunity, supply and proof of relevant documents, evidentiary value, burden of proof, natural justice and application of mind are attracted to the facts of the present case. Those principles, when applied to the material before this Court, compel the conclusion that the impugned disciplinary action cannot be sustained.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms. All consequential benefits shall follow in accordance with law.

There shall be no order as to costs.