# Devendra Kumar Sharma v. The General Manager Punjab National Bank & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 184
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-29
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 50769 of 2013
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-kumar-sharma-v-the-general-manager-punjab-national-bank-ors-53724
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

N.K. Pandey, Sudha Pandey

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether dismissal of a Bank employee for
transferring ₹12,000/- from a customer's
account without authority, and receiving
the amount through another employee's
account, constitutes gross misconduct
under
Para
5(j)
of
the
Bipartite
Settlement, and whether the punishment
of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate
so as to warrant interference under Article

## Text

_Characters 0–39,752 of 46,792. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39752 for what follows._

184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. Be that as it may, a person
appointed on contract basis has no
enforceable right to claim renewal or
continuation
of
service
beyond
the
stipulated period. Once the contractual term
ends, the appointment automatically lapses.
Renewal or reappointment is entirely at the
discretion
of
the
employer,
unless
arbitrariness
or
discrimination
is
demonstrated."

21. In view of above submissions and
the settled position of law, the instant
petition is devoid of merit and is
dismissed, accordingly.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 50769 of 2013

Devendra Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager Punjab National
Bank & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nasiruzzaman

Counsel for the Respondents:
N.K. Pandey, Sudha Pandey

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether dismissal of a Bank employee for
transferring ₹12,000/- from a customer's
account without authority, and receiving
the amount through another employee's
account, constitutes gross misconduct
under
Para
5(j)
of
the
Bipartite
Settlement, and whether the punishment
of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate
so as to warrant interference under Article
226.
HEADNOTE
Service
Law
-
Bank
employee
-
Departmental Inquiry - Gross Misconduct
- Financial Integrity - No re-appreciation
of evidence in writ jurisdiction - Dismissal
- Not shockingly disproportionate - Writ
dismissed.
Held
:
Inquiry records shows debit of customer's
account
by
petitioner
without
any
debit
authority and transfer of the amount to another
employee's account, who withdrew it and paid
to the petitioner. Mobin Khan (complainant)
denied signing or authorizing the debit voucher.
Inquiry
Officer,
Disciplinary
Authority
and
Appellate Authority concurrently found petitioner
guilty. In writ jurisdiction court cannot reappreciate evidence or act as appellate court.
Financial
misconduct
in
banking
service
constitutes gross misconduct under Para 5(j) of
Bipartite Settlement. Bank employees are
custodians of public money and are held to the
highest standards of probity. Punishment of
dismissal cannot be said to be shockingly
disproportionate. Writ petition dismissed; (Paras
32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh,
(2023) 19 SCC 102; Union of India v.
Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
284;
Tara
Chand
Vyas
v.
Chairman
&
Disciplinary Authority, (1997) 4 SCC 565; State
Bank of India v. T.J. Paul, (1999) 4 SCC 759;
United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003)
4 SCC 364; Administrator, U.T. of Dadra &
Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad, (2010) 5 SCC
775; State Bank of Mysore v. M.C. Krishnappa,
(2011) 7 SCC 325

List of Acts
Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Bank
employee;
Gross
Misconduct;
Debit
voucher; Passing entries without authority;
Financial Integrity; Transfer of customer money;
No re-appreciation of evidence; Judicial Review;
Disproportionate
punishment;
Custodian
of
public funds.

CASE ARISING FROM
8 All. Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs. The General Manager Punjab National Bank & Ors.
185
Order of dismissal dated 20.05.2013, and
rejection
of
departmental
appeal,
pursuant
to
charge-sheet
dated
12.06.2012.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Mr. Nasiruzzaman,
Advocate
Advs For Respondents: Mr. N.K. Pandey; Ms.
Sudha Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The petitioner, an Ex-Head Cashier
with
the
Punjab
National
Bank,
is
aggrieved by the order of his dismissal
from service dated 20.05.2013, passed after
holding disciplinary proceedings. The order
aforesaid has been made by the Assistant
Regional Manager, Disciplinary Action
Cell, Circle Office Bulandshahr. The
petitioner is also aggrieved by the order of
the Circle Head, Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office Bulandshahr, dismissing his
appeal preferred from the order of the
Disciplinary
Authority.
By
this
writ
petition, the petitioner challenges both
these orders.

2. The petitioner was appointed
Agril.-Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper with
the New Bank of India on 01.08.1988.
He was selected by direct recruitment
held by the Banking Service Regulation
Board, Delhi. He joined duty at the
Malout Branch of the New Bank of
India, District Faridkot on 31.08.1988.
On 04.09.1993, the New Bank of India
merged with the Punjab National Bank
(for short, 'the Bank') and since then, the
petitioner became an employee of the
Bank. He says that he served the Bank
very sincerely and faithfully. In the year
2012, he was posted as the Head Cashier
with the Anoopshahr Branch of the Bank
in the district of Bulandshahr.

3. On 09.03.2012, one Mobin Khan, a
customer of the Bank, addressed a letter to
the Branch Manager, Anoopshahr Branch
of the Bank, saying that he was an account
holder of the Bank's Malakpur Branch. His
account number was 3662000/00013691.
He said that a sum of Rs.12,000/- was
debited from his account, regarding which
he received a message on his mobile phone
at 10.21 a.m. Mobin Khan went on to say
that he had not issued any cheque or signed
a withdrawal form or transfer voucher for
the said sum of money, authorizing the
debit. He was surprised that his account
was debited with the said sum of money.
Mobin Khan says that he contacted the
Bank's Toll Free Helpline number and was
informed
by
the
Circle
Officer,
Bulandshahr that the debit of Rs.12,000/-
from his account had been made at the
Anoopshahr Branch of the Bank. He
requested refund of the lost money and
action against the concerned officer.

4. The petitioner says that Mobin
owed him a sum of Rs.12,000/-, which he
had taken in loan from him. He came up to
the Anoopshahr Branch on 17.03.2012,
when the petitioner demanded his money.
Mobin Khan, according to the petitioner,
said that the petitioner could take the
money by transferring the same in his own
account from Mobin Khan's. The petitioner
then gave the account number of a Peon
with the Bank, Kapil Kumar, bearing No.
0031001700019736. Mobin Khan filled up
the transfer form and also made a written
request for transfer of the money on the
transfer voucher, duly signed by him. After
the transfer voucher was received, the
petitioner sent it for verification to the
Authorized Officer of the Bank. The money
was
then
transferred.
The
petitioner
emphasized that the Verifying Authority
gave his statement on 25.04.2013 to the
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Disciplinary
Authority,
regarding
the
verification done by him.

5. After receipt of Mobin Khan's
complaint, the Chief Manager asked the
petitioner regarding the incident, requiring
him to file his reply. The petitioner filed a
reply before the Chief Manager on
18.04.2012. The petitioner was issued with
a
charge-sheet
dated
12.06.2012.
A
corrigendum to the charge-sheet was issued
on 07.08.2012. An Inquiry Officer, to wit,
C.B. Pandey, a Senior Manager, posted at
Branch
Officer
Jahangirabad
was
appointed. The petitioner, after receipt of
the
charge-sheet,
including
the
corrigendum thereof, filed his reply before
the Inquiry Officer on 23.10.2012. The
petitioner says that the Presenting Officer
filed his brief before the Inquiry Officer on
27.11.2012
and
the
Inquiry
Officer
submitted his report dated 01.12.2012 to
the
Disciplinary
Authority.
The
Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner on 12.04.2013,
granting him opportunity of personal hearing
on 25.04.2013 at 3.00 p.m. at the Circle
Office of the Bank at Bulandshahr. After
issue of the show cause notice, the petitioner
appeared before the Disciplinary Authority in
person on 16.05.2013. The Disciplinary
Authority passed his order dated 20.05.2013,
dismissing the petitioner from service. The
petitioner carried an appeal to the Appellate
Authority on 18.06.2013. The Appellate
Authority
dismissed
the
appeal
on
14.08.2013, in a very casual manner, as the
petitioner pleads.

6. Disillusioned with both these
orders, the instant writ petition has been
instituted by the petitioner.

7. A notice of motion was issued on
18.07.2013. A counter affidavit was filed
on behalf of the Bank on 27.03.2014, to
which
a
rejoinder
was
put
in
on
07.07.2014. The petitioner filed two
supplementary
affidavits:
one
dated
03.08.2013,
and
the
other
dated
11.10.2018.
A
supplementary
counter
affidavit was filed on behalf of the Bank on
17.04.2015.

8. The petition drifted at the admission
stage from the year 2013 until 03.12.2024,
when it was admitted to hearing, which
proceeded forthwith. The original records
of the inquiry were summoned from the
Assistant General Manager of the Bank at
Bulandshahr. The matter was extensively
heard on 10.12.2024, when the original
records of the inquiry were produced
before the Court. It was heard on various
dates and the records of the inquiry
perused. Judgment was reserved.

9. Heard Mr. Nasiruzzaman, learned
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.K.
Pandey along with Ms. Sudha Pandey,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.

10. It has been submitted by Mr.
Nasiruzzaman, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, that a perusal of the original
records of inquiry shows that proceedings
of the inquiry were recorded in a notebook
with the ink and paper, both appearing
fresh, though the time of record dates back
to the year 2012. It creates doubt about the
authenticity of these proceedings. It is next
submitted that on page No.30 of the
proceedings of inquiry, the statement of
Mobin Khan, a management witness, who
is the complainant, has been recorded. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner points
out that a question was put to him, whether
he had some personal dealings with the
petitioner. In reply, it was said by Mobin
8 All. Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs. The General Manager Punjab National Bank & Ors.
187
Khan that he had purchased an old tanker
(milk van) from the petitioner. Rs.25,000/-
of the sale consideration was paid through
CA and the balance in cash. It is pointed
out that on page No.32 of this witness's
testimony, a question was asked of him,
whether consideration was paid for the
tanker through cheque, to which the
witness said that he did not exactly recall
whether it was paid through a voucher or
cheque. The witness appeared confused.

11. It is next said that Mobin Khan
had said during his cross-examination
further, that the petitioner had come along
with Chaudhary Satendra Singh, Pramod
Sharma and Jitendra Pal Singh to Mobin
Khan's residence in Delhi to apologize
for his misconduct. It is submitted by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner that
Chaudhary
Satendra
Singh,
Pramod
Sharma and Jitendra Pal Singh were
examined as defence witnesses and they
denied the factum of their visit to the
complainant's home. They said of Mobin
Khan that he was a shabby character. It is
next pointed out that the testimony of
Durga Prasad, who was an Assistant
Manager at the Anoopshahr Branch of the
Bank at the relevant time, was recorded
too. He appeared as a defence witness.
His testimony is recorded at page No.54
of the proceedings of inquiry. In his
testimony, Durga Prasad has given the
correct story of the incident, according to
the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
This
witness,
according
to
learned
Counsel, says that Mobin Khan had come
to
the
Branch
on
17.03.2012
and
requested transfer of a sum of Rs.12,000/-
in Kapil Sharma's favour, since he did not
have his cheque-book on him. It was
transferred on the basis of a transfer
voucher on Mobin's application, scripted
on the back of another voucher with a
request to transfer the specified sum of
money.

12. The Court's attention has been
drawn to a copy of the application and the
voucher annexed to the application. It is
submitted that at no stage of the inquiry,
Mobin Khan's signatures were scrutinized
or examined. He was a regular visitor to
the Bank. He would be there almost
everyday. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that in order to avoid
controversy, the petitioner transferred the
sum of Rs.12,000/- in favour of Mobin
Khan. It is next argued that the conduct
of the petitioner is fair and free from
blemish. The petitioner's involvement, if
at all there, makes Durga Prasad equally
responsible. But, he has not at all been
proceeded with against, a fact which
shows the Bank's prejudice against the
petitioner.

13. It is next argued that reference to
some earlier misconduct or omission on the
petitioner's part, without the support of any
document or mention thereof in the
impugned order, is irrelevant. It is also
argued that assuming that in the past, the
petitioner had committed some misconduct,
the same is not the subject matter of the
present inquiry. The inquiry proceedings
are castigated as mala fide.

14. It is next argued that the service
conditions of the petitioner are governed
between him and the Bank in terms of the
bipartite settlement of 2002. According to
the bipartite settlement, there are two kinds
of misconduct, defined as gross misconduct
and minor misconduct. Under Paragraph 5
of
the
bipartite
settlement,
gross
misconduct is defined as one that is
specified in Clauses (a) to (u) of Paragraph
5. The punishment for gross misconduct is
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
specified in Paragraphs 6(a) to 6(u). So far
as the petitioner is concerned, he has been
punished
under
Paragraph
6(a)
with
dismissal without notice for an act of gross
misconduct covered, according to the Bank,
under Clause (j) of Paragraph 5 of the
bipartite settlement. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner has invited the Court's
attention to the terms of the misconduct as
specified in Paragraph 5(j) of the bipartite
settlement.

15. It is next pointed out that minor
misconduct has been defined in Paragraph
7 as acts or omissions specified in Clauses
(a) to (m) of Paragraph 7. The punishments
for minor misconduct is provided under
Paragraph 8 and its various clauses. It is
submitted by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner's misconduct
has anyhow been resolved with the
payment of Rs.12,000/-. He submits that
the act or omission attributed to the
petitioner does not fall under any of the
Clauses (a) to (u) of Paragraph 5 of the
bipartite settlement, particularly Clause (j).
According to the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, the misconduct, if any, is minor.
The petitioner's dismissal from service is,
therefore, in the submission of the learned
Counsel, bad in law.

16. The next submission advanced on
behalf of the petitioner is that the sum of
money involved is a meager Rs.12,000/-.
Therefore, action, if at all required to be
taken, would be one in terms of Paragraph
7 of the bipartite settlement, punishable
under Paragraph 8. It is pointed out that no
serious loss has been occasioned to the
Bank on account of the misconduct
attributed to the petitioner. The act is in no
way prejudicial to the Bank's interest.
There was no gross negligence involved on
the petitioner's part, likely to involve the
Bank
in
a
serious
loss.
Therefore,
according to the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, the misconduct, if any, attributed
to the petitioner, does not constitute gross
misconduct.

17. It is in the last submitted by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
punishment
awarded
is
shockingly
disproportionate. The misconduct alleges a
transaction involving a sum of Rs.12,000/-.
The said sum of money has been paid to the
complainant. The petitioner has been out of
service for about 11 years and is to retire in
the month of March, 2025. The punishment
awarded, according to the learned Counsel,
is severe and shockingly harsh.

18. Mr. N.K. Pandey along with Ms.
Sudha Pandey, learned Counsel, appearing
on behalf of the respondent Bank, submits
that the learned Counsel for the petitioner
had initially made out a case of procedural
irregularity in holding the inquiry and
further that the Disciplinary Authority had
not considered the documentary evidence
on record, besides the testimony of
witnesses, particularly, Durga Prasad, DW1 and Mobin Khan, MW-1, properly.
However, upon perusing the proceedings of
inquiry, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner did not press this point further.
The other point, which, according to Mr.
Pandey, was argued by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner, was that the punishment
of dismissal without notice, which falls
under Paragraph 6(a) read with Paragraph
5(j) of the bipartite settlement dated
10.04.2002 is disproportionate. It is argued
by Mr. Pandey that a perusal of page No.56
of the inquiry proceedings shows that the
defence witness, Durga Prasad (DW-1), in
answer to a question put to him, said that
he had not taken the complainant's
signatures on the letter of authority and also
8 All. Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs. The General Manager Punjab National Bank & Ors.
189
said that none of the officers of the Bank
allow inter-sol payment through vouchers.

19. It is next pointed out that Mobin
Khan (MW-2) said, testifying at the inquiry
recorded at pages 32, 35 and 36 of the
inquiry proceedings, that he had neither
signed the transfer voucher nor went to the
Anoopshahr Branch of the Bank on
17.03.2012. Learned Counsel for the
respondents points out further that Bank
Circular No. 19/2010 dated 15.03.2010,
relating to transfer transactions in customer
accounts (as mentioned in the inquiry
report dated 01.12.2012) clearly says that
transfer vouchers are meant for Branch use
alone and these are not instruments for use
by customers in order to carry out
transactions in their account. Therefore, in
the present case, the transfer voucher of
Malakpur Branch, that was used for a
transaction done at Anoopshahr Branch of
the Bank, was contrary to the circular
aforesaid. The learned Counsel for the
respondents submits that the petitioner's act
constitutes a gross misconduct under
Paragraph 5(j) of the bipartite settlement
and he has been rightfully punished under
Paragraph 6(a). The learned Counsel for the
respondents also points out that the
petitioner had filed an incorrect copy of the
bipartite
settlement
dated
10.04.2002,
wherein Paragraph 5(j) is incorrectly
mentioned. According to him, the petitioner
has tried to mislead this Court and has not
come with clean hands, a fact evident from
a copy of the bipartite settlement filed on
behalf of the petitioner.

20. It is next submitted by learned
Counsel for the respondents that the
petitioner's conduct has been blameworthy
in the past as well, as he was chargesheeted earlier vide charge-sheet dated
02.05.2011
and
punished
by
the
Disciplinary Authority by an order dated
12.06.2012. A second charge-sheet dated
30.03.2012,
that
was
issued
to
the
petitioner, was kept in abeyance, whereas
the third charge-sheet, that is subject matter
of
the
present
petition,
issued
on
12.06.2012, led to the imposition of the
punishment of dismissal without notice,
vide order dated 20.05.2013. The learned
Counsel for the respondents submits that in
these
circumstances,
the
punishment
awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to
be
unreasonable
or
shockingly
disproportionate.
The
misconduct
committed by the petitioner is a serious one
in Bank employment. An employee found
guilty of fraudulent withdrawals, deriving
pecuniary gain for himself, has to be
awarded a major penalty. It is argued that
the impugned orders are perfectly valid and
the past conduct of the petitioner has to be
considered. The nature of duties assigned to
the petitioner and the responsibilities
attached, require a high degree of probity
and discipline to be maintained.

21. It is next argued by the learned
Counsel for the respondents that quantum
of punishment is the discretionary domain
of the employer, who is the primary
decision maker. This discretionary power is
open to judicial review, if the punishment
awarded is shockingly disproportionate to
the misconduct established. It is submitted
that this Court in the exercise of our writ
jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over the
quantum of punishment. The learned
Counsel for the respondents has placed
reliance upon the authority of the Supreme
Court in Union of India and others v.
Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 284.

22. It is then submitted that the
principle is well settled that employees of
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
public sector banks, who are custodians of
public money, should be held to higher
standards of ethics and probity. Any
financial misconduct or irregularity should
be dealt with strictly. In this connection,
learned Counsel for the respondents has
referred
to
Tara
Chand
Vyas
v.
Chairman & Disciplinary Authority and
others, (1997) 4 SCC 565.

23. Also pressed in aid of their
submission by the Bank are the authorities
of the Supreme Court in State Bank of
India and others v. T.J. Paul, (1999) 4
SCC 759; Chairman and Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank and
others v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364;
Administrator,
Union
Territory
of
Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M.
Lad, (2010) 5 SCC 775; and, State Bank
of
Mysore
and
others
v.
M.C.
Krishnappa, (2011) 7 SCC 325.

24. It is well settled for a proposition
of law that a challenge to disciplinary
proceedings is generally confined to the
decision
making
process
by
the
Disciplinary Authority and not the decision
itself. Mr. Nasiruzzaman, learned Counsel
for the petitioner, has endeavoured hard to
invite us to enter the thicket of evidence
and re-examine it on points that really
borders on re-appreciation of evidence. We
are not a Court of appeal from the orders of
the
Disciplinary
Authority
and
the
Appellate Authority. We can interfere only
if irrelevant evidence has been considered
to reach the finding of guilt or relevant
evidence ignored. There are other grounds
of limited scope available, such as the
conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary
Authority being perverse. It is true that
mala fides on the Disciplinary Authority's
part would vitiate the findings, but mala
fides may be of fact or law. So far as legal
malice is concerned, there is no such
breach in the procedure of inquiry, where
constructive malice may be imputed. So far
as mala fides in fact are concerned, it is not
an inference to be drawn merely from the
adverse conclusions recorded by the
Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of
testimony,
that
may
reasonably
be
understood that way. This is precisely the
case
with
the
Inquiry
Officer,
the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority in finding the petitioner guilty.

25. The charge against the petitioner
reads (as amended by the corrigendum to
the charge-sheet dated 07.08.2012):

While
working
at
BO:
Anoopshahar
Distt
Bulandshahr
from
21.11.2009 to till date You are alleged to
have committed the following serious
lapses:

On 17.03.2012 You have debited
the Account No.3662000100013691 of
BO:Malakpur in the name of Shri Mobin
Khan for Rs. 12000/- twelve thousand only
maintained at BO Malakpur without any
debit authority letter and credited to
account No.0031001700019734 of Shri
Kapil Kumar, Peon BO: Anoopshahar
through Transfer vouchers though Shri
Mobin Khan maintaining cheque book
facilities in the above Saving Account. Both
entries were entered and passed by you and
related vouchers were passed by you under
your signature. You have told to Shri Kapil
Kumar that my known person has sent this
money so give me. Subsequently the amount
of Rs. 12000/- withdrawn by Shri Kapil
Kumar and paid to you.

On 17.03.2012 You have debited
the Account No 3662000100013691 of
BO:Malakpur in the name of Shri Mobin
Khan for Rs. 12000/- twelve thousand only
maintained at BO:Malakpur without any
8 All. Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs. The General Manager Punjab National Bank & Ors.
191
debit authority letter and credited to
account No.0031001700019734 of Shri
Kapil
Kumar,
Account
holder
BO:
Anoopshahar through Transfer vouchers
though Shri Mobin Knan maintaining
cheque book facilities in the above Saving
Account. Both entries were entered and
passed by you and related vouchers were
passed by you under your signature. You
have told to Shri Kapil Kumar that my
known person has sent this money so give
me. Subsequently the amount of Rs. 12000/-
withdrawn by Shri Kapil Kumar and paid
to you.

When the account holder Shri
Mobin Khan made a complaint on 19.03.12
that his account has been wrongly debited
from BO: Anoopshhar after that you have
deposited cash Rs.12000/- on 21.03.2012 in
the account No.3662000100013691

Your above act are prejudicial to
the interest of the bank and it is a Gross
Misconduct as per Para 5(j) of Bi-Partite
Settlement dated 10.04.2002 as amended
up to date.

26. In order to prove this charge, the
management relied on seven management
documents marked ME-1 to ME-7 and
three management witnesses, M1, M2 and
M3, which included the complainant. The
petitioner relied upon six documents in
defence, besides seven defence witnesses.

27. The Inquiry Officer reached his
conclusions mostly on basis of the fact that
Mobin Khan's bank account maintained
with the Malakpur Branch of the Bank was
debited by the petitioner on 17.03.2012
with a sum of Rs.12,000/-, without a debit
authority from the customer, and the
debited sum of money was credited to the
account of Kapil Kumar, a Peon at the
Anoopshahr Branch, through a transfer
voucher. This was more or less the charge
also. The Inquiry Officer has noted the fact
that the debit and credit entries were made
by the petitioner without any letter of
authority and verification by the authorized
official or a posting in the customer's
passbook, which is mandatory as per
guidelines.

28. Now, so far as posting in the
passbook is concerned, in contemporary
practice, whatever the rules might say,
passbooks are seldom posted. But, the most
crucial finding by the Inquiry Officer is that
the signature on the debit voucher by
Mobin Khan had not been verified by the
Authorized
Officials
(Inspection
and
Control Division). The Inquiry Officer has
then noted that since the voucher was from
another branch, the petitioner went to an
officer of that branch, Durga Prasad, along
with the complainant, Mobin Khan and
Khan wrote his consent on the backside of
the voucher, which he signed in the
presence of Durga Prasad. Durga Prasad's
testimony as a defence witness has been
remarked by the Inquiry Officer to be
contradictory. The last part of the Inquiry
Officer's finding is rather confounding. On
the basis of these remarks, he has held the
charge against the petitioner proved.

29. From the order of the Disciplinary
Authority, the concluding remarks of the
Inquiry Officer about the contradiction
have been clarified in that, that whereas
according to the petitioner, he took Mobin
Khan on 15.03.2012 to Durga Prasad with a
signed voucher and a consent on its
reverse, Durga Prasad, while testifying as a
defence witness, said that Mobin Khan
visited the Branch on 17.03.2012 and
signed the voucher in his presence. He has
scripted an application on the reverse of the
voucher authorizing the transaction. It is
this contradiction, which has been regarded
192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as material to hold the charge proved by the
Inquiry Officer, and, more than that by the
Disciplinary Authority. The finding has
been affirmed in departmental appeal.

30. What is most crucial is whether
Mobin Khan signed the debit voucher and
endorsed on its reverse his authority to
make the debit. We notice that in his
testimony at the inquiry, particularly his
cross-examination, Mobin Khan has stoutly
denied ever having signed the debit
voucher or authorizing the transaction. He
denied visiting the Bank at any time or
signing the debit voucher or writing an
authorization on its reverse. He has
consistently complained about the illegal
withdrawal of money from his account. The
voucher, that was used in the transaction,
was from the Malakpur Branch while the
debit and credit posting was done at
Anoopshahr. The conclusion, therefore,
drawn
by
the
Inquiry
Officer,
the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority, that the complainant Mobin
Khan never authorized the debit of
Rs.12,000/- from his bank account, is
reasonable and also that this debit was
made by the petitioner himself from Mobin
Khan's bank account and credited to the
account of Kapil Kumar.

31. Kapil Kumar in his testimony has
said that the petitioner had told him ahead
of the event that he was to receive a
remittance from some relative, which
would be credited to Kapil Kumar's
account. Kapil Kumar was told by the
petitioner that when Kumar received the
remittance, he should withdraw and pay it
to the petitioner. In his testimony, Kapil
Kumar has said that he received a sum of
Rs.12,000/- in his bank account, which he
withdrew and paid to the petitioner. It is the
twin facts of the debit authority relating to
Mobin
Khan's
account,
not
being
authorized or signed by him and the money
transferred ultimately making its way via
Kapil Kumar's account into the petitioner's
hands,
that
have
apparently
become
clinchers against the petitioner. It is a very
plausible view of the evidence taken by the
Departmental Authorities, and even if there
is some illegality about it or a better view is
possible, it is not our province, sitting in
secondary review, to substitute our own
wisdom for that of the primary decision
maker, the Departmental Authorities.

32. The legal position in this regard is
exposited in Indian Oil Corporation and
others v. Ajit Kumar Singh and another,
(2023) 19 SCC 102, where it is remarked:

"10. The facts of the case leading
to the issuance of charge-sheet, initiation of
departmental inquiry, the report of the
enquiry officer and the punishment inflicted
upon Respondent 1 have already been
narrated in the preceding paragraphs. It is
not in dispute that during the course of
inquiry, fair opportunity of hearing was
afforded to Respondent 1 at every stage.
This was even found by the learned Single
Judge while dismissing the writ petition
challenging the punishment inflicted upon
him. The judgment [Ajit Kumar Singh v.
Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat
3395] passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court shows that matter was dealt
with in a manner as if it was the first stage
of the case, namely, the inquiry was being
conducted and enquiry report was being
prepared, which is not the scope in judicial
review.

12. If the facts of the case are
examined in the light of the settled
principles of law in scope of judicial
review, we find that the Division Bench of
the High Court proceeded to reappreciate
8 All. Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs. The General Manager Punjab National Bank & Ors.
193
the entire evidence as if conviction in a
criminal trial was being re-examined by the
next higher court......."

33. The submissions of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, where he has
attempted to discredit the findings recorded
by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority by
pointing
out,
as
he
says,
glaring
discrepancies in evidence if accepted,
would take us into the forbidden territory of
re-appreciating evidence. In the jurisdiction
that we exercise, we cannot sit as a Court
of appeal, re-appreciate evidence and
record a finding in the fashion of a Court of
first appeal, different from that of the
Departmental Authorities. There is no
manifest illegality or a fundamental flaw in
procedure pointed out by the petitioner in
the impugned proceedings, that may vitiate
the conclusions drawn by the respondents.
It is trite law that the kind of review, that is
done in a writ petition, is more concerned
with the fairness and legality of procedure
employed in reaching the decision by
primary decision maker, rather than the
validity of the decision itself.

34. So far as the objection advanced
on behalf of the petitioner that his past
conduct had been taken into consideration,
which was irrelevant, we think that even if
for a principle that were correct, here
looking to the charge by itself, the
conclusion drawn by the respondents
cannot be condemned as perverse, or one
vitiated
by
extraneous
or
irrelevant
considerations. The next submission is that
the conduct attributed to him would be
minor
misconduct
as
enumerated
in
Paragraph 7, Clauses (a) to (m) of the
bipartite
settlement
and
not
gross
misconduct contemplated under Clauses (a)
to (u) of Paragraph 5. Paragraphs 5 and 7 of
the bipartite settlement read:

5. By the expression "gross
misconduct" shall be meant any of the
following acts and omissions on the part of
an employee:

(a) engaging in any trade or
business outside the scope of his duties
except with the written permission of the
bank;

(b) unauthorised disclosure of
information regarding the affairs of the
bank or any of its customers or any other
person connected with the business of the
bank which is confidential or the disclosure
of which is likely to be prejudicial to the
interests of the bank;

(c) drunkenness or riotous or
disorderly or indecent behavior on the
premises of the bank;

(d) willful damage or attempt to
cause damage to the property of the bank
or any of its customers;

(e) willful insubordination or
disobedience of any lawful and reasonable
order of the management or of a superior;

(f) habitual doing of any act
which amounts to "minor misconduct" as
defined below, "habitual" meaning a
course of action taken or persisted in,
notwithstanding that at least on three
previous occasions censure or warnings
have been administered or an adverse
remark has been entered against him;

(g) willful slowing down in
performance of work;

(h) gambling or betting on the
premises of the bank;

(i) speculation in stocks, shares,
securities or any commodity whether on his
account or that of any other persons;

(j) doing any act prejudicial to
the interest of the bank or gross negligence
194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or negligence involving or likely to involve
the bank in serious loss;

(k) giving or taking a bribe or
illegal gratification from a customer or an
employee of the bank;

(l) abetment or instigation of any
of the acts or omissions above-mentioned;

(m) Knowingly making a false
statement in any document pertaining to or
in connection with his employment in the
bank;

(n) Resorting to unfair practice
of
any
nature
whatsoever
in
any
examination conducted by the Indian
Institute of Bankers or by or on behalf of
the bank and where the employee is
caught in the act of resorting to such
unfair practice and a report to that effect
has been received by the bank from the
concerned authority;

(o) Resorting to unfair practice of
any nature whatsoever in any examination
conducted by the Indian Institute of
Bankers or by or on behalf of the bank in
cases, not covered by the above SubClause(n) and where a report to that effect
has been received by the bank from the
concerned authority and the employee does
not accept the charge;

(p)
Remaining
unauthorisedly
absent without intimation continuously for
a period exceeding 30 days;

(q)
Misbehaviour
towards
customers arising out of bank's business;

(r)
Contesting
election
for
parliament/ legislative assembly/ legislative
council/local
bodies/municipal
corporation/ panchayat, without explicit
written permission of the bank;

(s) Conviction by a criminal
Court of Law for an offence involving
moral turpitude;

(t) indulging in any act of 'sexual
harassment'
of
any
woman
at
her
workplace;

Note: Sexual harassment shall
include
such
unwelcome
sexually
determined behaviour (whether directly or
otherwise) as

(a)
physical
contact
and
advances;

(b) demand or request for sexual
favours;

(c) sexually coloured remarks;

(d) showing pornography; or

(e) any other unwelcome physical
verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual
nature:

(u) (For State Bank of India)

the giving or taking or abetting
the
giving
or
taking of
dowry
or
demanding, directly or indirectly from a
parents or guardians of a bride or
bridegroom, as the case may be, any
dowry.

Explanation - For the purpose of
sub-clause (u) the word 'dowry' has the
same
meaning
as
in
the
"Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961"

7. By the expression "minor
misconduct" shall be meant any of the
following acts and omissions on the part of
an employee:

(a) absence without leave or
overstaying
sanctioned
leave
without
sufficient grounds;

(b)
unpunctual
or
irregular
attendance;

(c) neglect of work, negligence in
performing duties;

(d) breach of any rule of business
of the bank or instruction for the running of
any department;

(e) committing nuisance on the
premises of the bank;

(f)
entering
or
leaving
the
premises of the bank except by an entrance
provided for the purpose;

(g)
attempt
to
collect
or
collecting moneys within the premises of
8 All. Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs. The General Manager Punjab National Bank & Ors.
195
the bank without the previous permission of
the management or except as allowed by
any rule or law for the time being in force;

(h) holding or attempting to hold
or attending any meeting or the premises of
the bank without the previous permission of
the management or except in accordance
with the provisions of any rule or law for
the time being in force;

(i)
canvassing
for
union
membership or collection of union dues or
subscriptions within the premises of the
bank without the previous permission of the
management or except in accordance with
the provisions of any rule or law for the
time being in force;

(j) failing to show proper
consideration, courtesy or attention
towards officers, customers or other
employees of the bank, unseemly or
unsatisfactory behavior while on duty;

(k) marked disregard of ordinary
requirements of decency and cleanliness, in
person or dress;

(l) incurring debts to an extent
considered
by
the
management
as
excessive;

(m) resorting to unfair practice
of
any
nature
whatsoever
in
any
examination conducted by the Indian
Institute of Bankers or by or on behalf of
the bank in cases not covered by subclause (n) under 'Gross Misconduct' and
where a report to that effect has been
received by the bank from the concerned
authority and the employee accepts the
charge;

(n) refusal to attend training
programmes without assigning sufficient
and valid reasons;

(o) Not wearing, while on duty,
identity card issued by the bank;

(p) Not wearing, while on duty,
the uniforms supplied by the bank, in clean
condition.

35. The petitioner has been held guilty
of violating Clause (j) of Paragraph 5 of the
bipartite settlement, which defines gross
misconduct. The action of the petitioner, in
illegally transferring moneys of a customer
to another's account and securing it from
the other customer for himself, is certainly
an act that is gross misconduct in banking
services. The financial uprightness and
integrity of a bank employee are the most
important of all virtues. Any violation, that
may show financial dishonesty in banking
service, is regarded as serious misconduct.
It is certainly gross misconduct. The
submissions to the contrary advanced by
the learned Counsel for the petitioner on
this ground cannot be accepted.

36. This takes us to the last point
advanced on behalf of the petitioner and
that is that the punishment awarded is
shockingly disproportionate. As already
remarked, in banking service, financial
integrity of an employee cannot be
compromised. Banks deal with public
funds and a man, who cannot be trusted
with money of others, cannot be part of a
bank in any capacity. In this connection,
reference may be made to Gulabhia M.
Lad (supra), where it has been held:

14.