AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Johar Shakir, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Chhabra, learned counsel for respondents.
By way of this order, we are testing validity and propriety of the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated by the respondent bank against its employee i.e. the present petitioner. The petitioner has been awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from services. The evidence and the proceedings of Disciplinary Enquiry are tested in the backdrop of various propositions of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The learned counsel for the respondent bank has cited following judgments in support of its case.
Indian Oil Corporation & Ors Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr, decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 17.5.2023, in Civil Appeal No. 3663/2023,
ii) State of Karnataka and anr Vs. Umesh, (2022)6SCC 563,
iii) State of Rajasthan and Ors Vs. Heem Singh, (2021)12SCC 569,
iv) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021)2SCC 612,
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011)4 SCC 584,
vii) M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr, (2018) 18 SCC 21,
viii) B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Ors, (1995)6 SCC 749,
xi) State of Mysore and Os Vs. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur, AIR (1963) SC 375,
xii) Sripati Ranjan Biswas Vs. Collector of Customs and Other, AIR 1964 Calcutta 415.
We have gone through the aforesaid judgments. What emerges are the following principles while deciding the Departmental Enquiry:
Power of judicial review is evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision;
Court in exercise of judicial review, must restrict its view to determine whether -
rules of natural justice have been complied with and the findings of misconduct based on some evidence;
statutory rules governing conduct of disciplinary enquiry were followed;
findings of disciplinary authority suffer from perversity,
penalty disproportionate to prove misconduct.
The proof in disciplinary proceedings is preponderance of probability. Court will not interfere except where findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The facts narrated above would be decided on the basis of aforesaid principles.
The petitioner, an employee of the respondent bank was appointed on 30.6.1983, as a Clerk in the bank. On 12.1.2007, he was posted as Assistant Manager at Dhanki Branch, Yavatmal but working as Cashier. On 17.4.2009, memorandum containing article of charges was served upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority/Chief Manager of the bank and the charges were as under:
Failure to discharge his duties with almost devotion and diligence,
ii) Failure to discharge his duties with almost honesty and integrity,
iii) Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of bank,
iv) Acting otherwise than his best judgment in performance of his official duties.
Memorandum containing article of charges was also supported by statement of allegations. In short, it was the case of the respondent bank that petitioner, while working as Assistant Manager at Dhanki branch, had accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/- from one of the proposed borrowers. The petitioner subsequently returned the said amount in two installments of Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 3,000/-, during vigilance enquiry. This fact indicates acceptance of illegal gratification from borrowers of bank.
It was also the case of the bank that an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was credited in his account on 19.10.2007. The clarification given by the petitioner regarding source of income was not satisfactory. As per bank, the petitioner had visited some of the borrowers at their residence along with the agent of tractor dealer for canvasing loan proposal. It was also stated that the person from whom amount of Rs. 20,000/- was accepted was Mr. Punjaram Halde.
In order to further support its case, it was the case of the bank that the petitioner had gone to residence of Mr. Chim (superior officer of the petitioner) and brought the amount of Rs. 20,000/- from Mr. Chim for repaying to Mr. Halde. Consequently, the respondent bank, after following certain procedure, appointed Inquiring Authority Presenting Officer. The petitionerchargesheeted officer (CSO), was given assistance by the Assistant Officer (AO) Mr. R.A. Bhosale. The respondent bank, in order to prove the case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities has examined a witness by name Mr. A.K. Pandit, attached to respondent bank as Senior Manager. Further, he was subjected to cross examination. Defence witness was one Mr.Vilas Kautkar and thereafter, the enquiry was closed. Enquiry Officer, after preparation of inquiry report submitted the same to the Disciplinary Authority by giving opportunity to the petitioner to rebut his finding given against him. On 27.4.2010, the Disciplinary Authority/Chief Manager imposed the Manager penalty of “compulsory retirement from the services of the bank with immediate effect”. An appeal filed against the order met the same fate, on 28.2.2011, at the hands of Appellate Authority/Assistant General Manager (IR). Even before the Reviewing Authority fortune did not favour the petitioner which resulted into dismissal of the review proceedings on 29.8.2011. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court.
We have extensively heard Mr. Johar Shakir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Chhabra, learned counsel for respondents bank. We have also gone through various judgments cited by both the parties.
It is the case of the petitioner that there is absolutely no evidence to punish the him and therefore, the Court, considering the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, should interfere with the orders impugned. According to him, the allegations are not even proved on the basis of preponderance of probability. It is his case that the principle of burden of proof be shifted upon delinquent on the basis of preponderance of probability also. The employer is required to at least demonstrate a prima facie case.
In this matter, it is clear that though it has been alleged that the petitioner has accepted an amount towards illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- from one of the proposed borrower Mr. Punjaram Halde (page 30) but fact remains that he has not been examined by the respondent bank. Further, the contention of the employer that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/- was returned in two installments is also not supported by any evidence. In this regard, reference can be made to page 90 which is statement of allegations (annexure to Article of Charge) wherein it is observed that “one of the proposed borrower Mr Punjaram Halde has paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to Mr. Patil for sanction of his loan. Vigilance Department officials discussed this issue with Mr. Patil. He denied of having taken of any money. Subsequently on 10.3.2008, Mr. Patil visited the hotel room of the Vigilance Department officials at Yavatmal and stated that he is connected unnecessarily in the involvement of controversy and on the previous day he has gone to the residence of Mr. Chin, the then Branch Manager of Dhanki Branch and brought an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from Mr. Chin for repaying it to Mr. Halde.
If the said statement of allegations are perused in the background of the Disciplinary Enquiry which is carried out, it would be crystal clear that neither Mr. Halde, Mr. Chim and the officer for Vigilance Department were examined. The foundational facts even for deciding the allegations on the basis of per-ponderance of probability are missing, therefore, it can be said that there is absolutely no evidence in support of charge.
In so far as charge levelled against the petitioner that a credit entry of Rs. 1,15,000/- which is allegedly disproportionate to the known source of income appear in the O.D. account is concerned, the said allegation is also not based on any evidence. In his explanation, the petitioner has specifically stated (page 91), that the credit entry of Rs. 1,15,000/- cannot be termed as an income disproportionate to his known sources as according to him, amount was withdrawn from his OD account to lent to his father in law. He has further stated that on 6.4.2009, he has received amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from his father in law for marriage of petitioner's daughter. He further stated that witness of employer though took into consideration credit entry but did not notice the debit entry. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the said amount was in any manner disproportionate.
So far as contention of counsel for the bank that in order to prove the innocence, the employee/petitioner could have examined either Mr. Halde or Chim is without any substance. In this regard it is necessary to mention here that the concept of preponderance of probability clearly means that the bank is required to prove at least prima facie case and thereafter, can proceed against the employee. Preponderance of probability would mean that one version is more convincing and probable than other. In this case, shifting burden on the employee will not be permissible as one set of fact at least will have to be proved (in case in hand by bank) in order to disbelieve story of the employer. Thus, scale tilts in favour of the probability that employee did not accept any amount.
It is further necessary to mention here that the enquiry officer in his enquiry report has observed as under: (page 25)
“When, defence claim that CSO was innocent and falsely implicated by Mr. Chim in this episode, then why he went to Mr. Chim on 9-3-2008 and brought back Rs. 20,000/0-, in order to pay back the amount to Mr. Halde? The Chargesheeted Officer did denied initially that Mr. Halde paid him Rs. 20,000/- but did not remain firm on his denial, why?
The aforesaid observation clearly shows that the reasoning adopted by the enquiry officer is strange and it is very difficult to gather what is “firmness” according to the enquiry officer.
The further observations of the enquiry officer at page 25, are produced herein below:
“ii) The CSO did not resist the serious nature wrong practices in general and more particularly the practices of giving and taking of illegal gratifications. There is no evidence brought by the CSO to show that he did report to the controlling office about the serious natured practice going on in the branch, under managership of Mr. Chim. The CSO was silent about this issue. His silence speaks volume about his misconduct at the branch. Merely, arguing that CSO was innocent does not refute the allegation.”
It is thus crystal clear that the report was thus best more than inferences than the facts. In fact, in articles of charge, no such allegations were made (page 88 of Pursis dated 30.3.2023).
As far as allegations regarding that CSO did canvas with the agent of tractor dealers for the loan proposals of the prospective buyer is concerned, we could not find any material in support of said allegations. As already stated, only one witness was examined during the inquiry at the behest of employee-bank. The documentary evidence produced also does not support the charge. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding Civil Appeal No.13017/2025 on 27.10.2025, (arising out of SLP (Civil No. 30819/2025) V.M. Saudagar (dead) through legal heirs Vs. The Divisional Commissioner Manager, Central Railway and another, has set aside the punishment imposed upon the employee of dismissal. In that case, the delinquent was serving as a travel ticket examiner and on a day a surprise check was conducted by vigilance team. It was alleged that delinquent had demanded illegal gratification from passengers which included Rs. 25/-from one Hemant Kumar, unrefunded Rs. 20/- from Dinesh Chaudhary and unrefunded Rs. 5/- from Rajkumar Jaiswal for allotment of bus. The delinquent was found in possession of excess cash of Rs. 1254/- excluding personal and railway cash. During course of enquiry, Dinesh Chaudhary and Rajkumar Jaiswal, along with vigilance inspector were examined but primary complainant – Hemantkumar whose written statement formed the basis of charge, was not examined during the enquiry and his statement was never subjected to cross-examination.
Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 17.1 has observed “in respect of 1st charge of demanding illegal gratification from 3 passengers for allotment of berths in the train, it to be seen that one of the passengers, namely, Hemant Kumar was not examined and the other two passengers, namely Dinesh Chaudhary and Rajkumar Jaiswal have not supported the charge against the appellant”.
Considering the aforesaid aspect also, the Court, in paragraph 18, while setting aside punishment of dismissal has observed as under:
“The High Court has failed to take note of legal position that when the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse basing on completely misleading of the material produced before the enquiry officer, CAT was fully justified in setting aside the order of penalty”.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon judgment in case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and ors Vs. Jai Bhagwan, reported in 2011(6)SCC 376 and relevant portion is reproduced as under:
15.In the present case, although there is some evidence that an amount of Rs. 100 was returned by the respondent to the complainant but there is no such direct and reliable evidence produced by the appellants in the departmental proceedings which could clearly prove and establish that the respondent demanded and received an illegal gratification of the said denomination. It seems that the proof of taking such illegal gratification has been drawn from the evidence of returning of Rs. 100/- to the complainant by way of a link-up.
16.It also seems quite impracticable to presume that in the presence of so many passengers, the respondent could have extorted money. The allegation of receiving Rs. 100 as illegal gratification is framed on suspicions and possibilities while trying to link it up with the instance of returning back of Rs. 100/- by the respondent to the complainant. There are many other shortcomings in the entire investigation and the enquiry like the statement of Mr.s Ranjana Kapoor was not recorded by the Inspector and the Inspector also did not take down in writing and also attest the complaint made by her. The statement of S.P. Narang was also not recorded by the Inspector nor did the Inspector seize Rs. 100 note nor noted down its number. Mr. Narang was also not examined during the course of departmental proceedings. Non examination of the complainant and P.S. Narang during the departmental proceeding has denied the respondent of his right of cross examination and thus caused violation of Rule 16(iii) of the Delhi Police (F&A) Rules, 1980.
The underlying principle of the aforesaid judgment can very well be made applicable to the case in hand as in the instant case also, there is absence of definite /clear proof supporting the case of the bank to a finding of taking illegal gratification by the petitioner employee.
In the aforesaid background, we also of the view that there was absolutely no material before the enquiry officer to arrive at the conclusion that charges are proved. The disciplinary authority ought not to have awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement and should have considered the fact that there was absolutely no evidence. Just because there is an entry in bank account, we cannot arrive at the conclusion that it was illegal gratification. Even the Disciplinary Authority has not taken into consideration the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to return the finding of guilt. The Enquiry Officer thus, relied upon no evidence and held charges to be proved. In the aforesaid background, we are of the opinion that case is of no evidence and therefore, petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, we allow the petition and quash and set aside the order dated 27.4.2020 (at annexure 3 dated 27.4.2010) passed by disciplinary authority/Chief Manager of Union Bank of India and subsequent order passed by the appellate authority and reviewing authority. Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled for all service benefits.