# Jag Pal Singh v. Union Of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 515
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-29
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 26097 of 2018
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jag-pal-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-53586
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Chandra Bhan Singh, Pankaj
Srivastava, S.C., Satish Chaturvedi
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the challenge of the
departmental punishment of dismissal from
service imposed on the petitioner (a bank
cashier) by the State Bank of India after an
inquiry, on the ground that the disciplinary
authority's findings were based solely on the
petitioner's alleged confessional statement made
to the Police during criminal investigation and
therefore constituted a case of no evidence.

Headnotes
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - S.4(6)(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, SS.
319,161 - Service Law - Disciplinary
Proceedings - Standard of proof - Sole
reliance on Police statement/Confession -
"No Evidence" Test - Preponderance of
probability - Confessional statement
before Police cannot by itself form basis
for
punishment-requirement
of
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
independent corroborative evidence for
sustaining findings - "Preponderance of
probability" cannot substitute existence of
independent evidence - Charge must have
supporting
material
and
not
mere
repetition of investigation statement -
High Court may interfere if findings suffer
from non-consideration of evidence or are
based on no evidence - Disciplinary
authority's fresh decision must follow
earlier judicial directions in letter and
spirit.
Held: Statement made before Police authorities
could not be the sole ground for punishing the
petitioner in departmental proceedings - Inquiry
must rely on independent material; otherwise
the finding fails the test of preponderance of
probability - There was no evidence connecting
petitioner directly or indirectly with the alleged
fraud or the resultant loss to the Bank - It is a
case of "no evidence" - Impugned order of
dismissal dated 20.06.2018 and the appellate
order quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh or
await outcome of criminal trial - petitioner
entitled to one-fourth of salary for period out of
service with continuity of service. (Paras
19,29,31,33,34,35,36) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Bharat Singh and Others v. State of Haryana
(1988) 4 SCC 534; Radha Raman Samanta v.
Bank of India (2004) 1 SCC 605; Roop Singh
Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC
570; Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2013) 3 SCC 73; United Bank of
India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee (2022) 13
SCC 329; State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy,
2023 INSC 766; Nand Kishore Prasad v. State
of Bihar (1978) 3 SCC 366; Anil Kumar v.
Presiding Officer (1985) 3 SCC 378;State
Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar (2011) 10
SCC 249; State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao,
AIR 1963 SC 1723;Union of India v. Subrata
Nath, 2022 SCC Online SC 1617

List of Acts
Constitution
of
India;
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

List of Keywords
Disciplinary Proceedings - Departmental ChargeSheet - Dismissal from Service without notice -
Confessional
Statement
Before
Police
-
Preponderance of Probability - No Evidence -
Gross Misconduct - Quasi-judicial proceedings -
Memorandum of Settlement - Gratuity Forfeiture
- Judicial Review - Reputational Loss - Fraud in
Account - No work no pay - Continuity in
service.

Case Arising From
Departmental charge-sheet dated 28.02.2015,
order
dated
20.06.2018
passed
by
the
Disciplinary Authority and an undated order
passed by the Appellate Authority are under
challenge.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ashok
Khare
(Sr.
Adv.),
Satyendra
Chandra Tripathi, Shiv Poojan Yadav, Sunil
Kumar Srivastava
Advs. for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Chandra Bhan Singh, Pankaj
Srivastava, S.C., Satish Chaturvedi.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,851 of 42,194. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39851 for what follows._

7 All. Jag Pal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
515
15. From the perusal of the
aforesaid report it is clearly established that
there has been no application of mind at all.

16. In the considered view of the
Court, any action that results in adverse
civil consequences and that too when it is
attributable to alleged malicious exercise, it
must be pre-visited with a notice to the
concerned employee to give him an
opportunity to offer his explanation and
hence on the touchstone of the principles of
natural justice the order dated 15th May,
2017 directing for pay correction of the
petitioner's pay grade and pay scale cannot
be sustained in law. Such an action,
therefore, automatically has got rendered
arbitrary and so also hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution. The second submission is also
liable to be upheld and is hereby upheld.

17. In view of the above, therefore,
the
correction
of
pay
grade
and
consequential pay scale of the petition with
effect from 2011 under the order impugned
cannot be sustained in law. The order dated
24th July, 2018 is, accordingly, hereby
quashed. Petitioner's pay grade and pay
scale stands restored as were prior to
correction. Petitioner shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits accordingly and
payment of difference of pension between
what he has been paid and what he ought to
have been paid taking his final pay at the
time of retirement as Rs.52,000/- with basic
pay of Rs.12540 in the grade pay of
Rs.4600 totalling to Rs.17,140/- as basic
pay, shall be made.

18.
The
difference
shall
be
computed and arrears shall be paid to the
petitioner within a maximum period of two
months and any delay in such payment
would result in accrual of interest at the
rate of 12% from the date of expiry of the
two months of presentation of certified
copy of this order till the actual payment is
made.

19. The writ petition is succeed and
is, accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 515
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 26097 of 2018

Jag Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.), Satyendra Chandra
Tripathi, Shiv Poojan Yadav, Sunil Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Chandra Bhan Singh, Pankaj
Srivastava, S.C., Satish Chaturvedi
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the challenge of the
departmental punishment of dismissal from
service imposed on the petitioner (a bank
cashier) by the State Bank of India after an
inquiry, on the ground that the disciplinary
authority's findings were based solely on the
petitioner's alleged confessional statement made
to the Police during criminal investigation and
therefore constituted a case of no evidence.

Headnotes
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - S.4(6)(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, SS.
319,161 - Service Law - Disciplinary
Proceedings - Standard of proof - Sole
reliance on Police statement/Confession -
"No Evidence" Test - Preponderance of
probability - Confessional statement
before Police cannot by itself form basis
for
punishment-requirement
of
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
independent corroborative evidence for
sustaining findings - "Preponderance of
probability" cannot substitute existence of
independent evidence - Charge must have
supporting
material
and
not
mere
repetition of investigation statement -
High Court may interfere if findings suffer
from non-consideration of evidence or are
based on no evidence - Disciplinary
authority's fresh decision must follow
earlier judicial directions in letter and
spirit.
Held: Statement made before Police authorities
could not be the sole ground for punishing the
petitioner in departmental proceedings - Inquiry
must rely on independent material; otherwise
the finding fails the test of preponderance of
probability - There was no evidence connecting
petitioner directly or indirectly with the alleged
fraud or the resultant loss to the Bank - It is a
case of "no evidence" - Impugned order of
dismissal dated 20.06.2018 and the appellate
order quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh or
await outcome of criminal trial - petitioner
entitled to one-fourth of salary for period out of
service with continuity of service. (Paras
19,29,31,33,34,35,36) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Bharat Singh and Others v. State of Haryana
(1988) 4 SCC 534; Radha Raman Samanta v.
Bank of India (2004) 1 SCC 605; Roop Singh
Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC
570; Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2013) 3 SCC 73; United Bank of
India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee (2022) 13
SCC 329; State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy,
2023 INSC 766; Nand Kishore Prasad v. State
of Bihar (1978) 3 SCC 366; Anil Kumar v.
Presiding Officer (1985) 3 SCC 378;State
Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar (2011) 10
SCC 249; State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao,
AIR 1963 SC 1723;Union of India v. Subrata
Nath, 2022 SCC Online SC 1617

List of Acts
Constitution
of
India;
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

List of Keywords
Disciplinary Proceedings - Departmental ChargeSheet - Dismissal from Service without notice -
Confessional
Statement
Before
Police
-
Preponderance of Probability - No Evidence -
Gross Misconduct - Quasi-judicial proceedings -
Memorandum of Settlement - Gratuity Forfeiture
- Judicial Review - Reputational Loss - Fraud in
Account - No work no pay - Continuity in
service.

Case Arising From
Departmental charge-sheet dated 28.02.2015,
order
dated
20.06.2018
passed
by
the
Disciplinary Authority and an undated order
passed by the Appellate Authority are under
challenge.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ashok
Khare
(Sr.
Adv.),
Satyendra
Chandra Tripathi, Shiv Poojan Yadav, Sunil
Kumar Srivastava
Advs. for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Chandra Bhan Singh, Pankaj
Srivastava, S.C., Satish Chaturvedi.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. The petitioner, while working in a
clerical
cadre
as
a
Cashier
with
Respondent-State Bank of India at Gonda
Branch,
has
faced
a
disciplinary
proceedings and his name was also
revealed during investigation as an accused
in a F.I.R. lodged by one Asha Pundir on
20.06.2024 about withdrawal of Rs.55
lakhs from her bank account without her
information or permission.

2. The petitioner was arrested on
26.11.2014 and was released on bail vide
an order dated 09.02.2015 passed by
Special
Judge,
E.C.
Act/Additional
Sessions Judge, Aligarh.

3. After investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed on 18.04.2015 against the
petitioner also on which cognizance was
taken and trial was commenced.
7 All. Jag Pal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
517

4.
According
to
supplementary
affidavit
filed
by
the
petitioner
on
28.01.2024, after framing charges, some of
the prosecution witnesses were examined
and two co-accused were also summoned
on basis of an application filed under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., therefore, it appears that
trial is still not concluded.

5. Simultaneously, petitioner has faced a
disciplinary proceeding also and departmental
charge-sheet dated 28.02.2015 was submitted and
petitioner was placed under suspension. Chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner that he has
committed following irregularities:

"1) आपके द्वारा बैंक की गोपनीयता को िंग भकया गया ।

2) आपकी भमलीिगत से यह घोखाधड़ी की गयी ।

3) आपके इस कृत्य से बैंक को 55.20 लाख रु० की हाभन
हुई तथा बैंक की छभव को अपूणवनीय क्षभत पहुंची है।"

6. Regional Manager of State Bank of India
vide an order dated 15.04.2015 appointed Sri H.C.
Sarkar, Chief Manager/Vigilance Department, Legal
Head, New Delhi, as an Inquiry Officer.

7. After conclusion of inquiry, a written brief of
Presenting Officer was submitted that the petitioner
has breached secrecy of bank, he has committed
fraud by hatching conspiracy and by aforesaid act,
bank has suffered a loss of Rs.55.20 lakhs.

8. Petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to
above referred brief and has annexed various
documents and denied all allegations made therein.

9. The Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry
report dated 09.10.2015 that all the three charges
were proved against the petitioner and relevant part
thereof i.e. finding of the Inquiry Officer on each
charge is mentioned hereinafter:

"My Findings

Following table gives the details of the
amount
withdrawn
from
A/c
No.30860679645 of Smt. Asha Pundir by
deposit Cheques by opening forged/fake
account in other Branches.

1
2
3
4
5
6
Sl
.
N
o.
Che
que
No.
Date
of
Payme
nt
Amoun
t in Rs.
Payin
g
Branc
h
Pe
x
N
o.
1
069
774
07/06/
2014
8,70,00
0.00
Atraul
i
P8/
6
2
069
771
07/06/
2014
8,50,00
0.00
do
P8/
8
3
069
772
07/06/
2014
7,30,00
0.00
do
P8/
10
4
069
773
07/06/
2014
9,40,00
0.00
do
P8/
10
5
069
791
11/06/
2015
9,20,00
0.00
ADB
Gabh
ana
P8/
12
6
069
792
11/06/
2014
7,80,00
0.00
do
P8/
12
7
069
788
10/06/
2014
4,30,00
0.00
Chan
daus
P8/
11

Pex 1/1 is the copy of office note
submitted to Regional Manager, Region-II,
by Chief Manager (Admin), in which it is
revealed that the EPA has shared all the
information with the fraudster regarding
the A/c No.30860679645 of Smt. Asha
Pundir. As a result, large amounts of
withdrawals took place through different
Branches by depositing Cheques bearing
forged signature of drawer. It is only
possible when an insider/Bank Employee
provides all the Customer's information
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regarding Account holder's Name/Mobile
number/ Balance amount /Account number/
Specimen Signature / status of operation of
account etc.

3. As per Bank's laid down
instructions,
Customer's
account
information cannot be disclosed/shared
with
any
person/outsider
in
any
circumstances. In this particular case, the
EPA has admitted that he has himself
provided all the information's to the
fraudster, it is revealed in copy of FIR
dated 19/20.06.2014 marked as Dex1/110-130.

Therefore, in view of the above
documentary/Circumstantial evidence, I
hold the charges levelled against the EPA
as substantiated.

xxx

"My Findings

"It was admitted by EPA as per
Dex-1/110-130. that he had conspired with
Shri Ajit Sharma (Canteen Boy) along with
two other accomplices, to defraud the large
sum
of
money
lying
in
the
A/c
No.30860679645 of Smt. Asha Pundir.
Accordingly, EPA executed the entire plan
as stated in Dex-1/110-130.

In PW1, deposed on the floor of
Enquiry on 08.06.2015, that the EPA had
confessed /commitment of fraud in front
of Crime Branch & also admitted that he
had
closed
all
the
Loan
accounts
including that of his Mother's KCC Loan
account. It is also substantiated, therefore,
Allegation No.2, levelled against EPA is
substantiated.

xxxxx

My findings.

It is confirmed from documents
Pex-9/1-12 that Bank has suffered a loss of
Rs.55.20 lacs, as the amount has been
transferred to Recalled Assets Account due
to EPA's Act.

His action have also resulted in
reputational loss for the Bank."

(Emphasis supplied)

10. The Disciplinary Authority issued
a provisional order dated 16.11.2015 that
why not petitioner be terminated on basis
of proved charges from service and sought
his reply.

11. In response to above referred
provisional order, petitioner submitted his
reply on 01.12.2015 that his earlier
explanation be taken note of and principles
of natural justice be complied with.

12. The Disciplinary Authority passed
a final order dated 10.12.2015 and
confirmed the penalty of dismissal from
service upon petitioner and an opportunity
was granted to him to file a departmental
appeal, if so advised. Relevant part of the
order is reproduced hereinafter:

"इस संबंध में श्री जगपाल वसंह, सहायक द्वारा
वदिांक 01/12/2015 को मेरे समक्ष व्यवक्तगत सुिवाई में अपिा
पक्ष रखा। मैंिे अिुिासविक प्रावधकारी के रूप में अपिे
वववेकावधकार का उवचत एवं न्द्याय संगत प्रयोग करते हुए श्री
जगपाल वसंह, सहायक को वदये गए आरोप पत्, उिसे प्राप्त
स्पष्टीकरण, उिके पूवष सेवा ररकॉडष व संबवन्द्धत फाइल तथा
व्यवक्तगत सुिवाई आवद को संज्ञाि में लेते हुए अद्ध्यि वकया ओर
पाया वक श्री जगपाल वसंह, सहायक द्वारा अिंवतम आदेि में ववणषत
चूकें की गयी हैं ओर मुझे अिंवतम आदेि में ववणषत दंड को बदलिे
का कोई कारण िज़र िहीं आता हैं। अतः इि परवस्थवतयों में, मैंिे
7 All. Jag Pal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
519
अंवतम रूप से विणषय वलया है वक भारतीय बैंकसष संघ एवं कमषचारी
यूवियि के मध्य हुए मैमोरेंडम ऑफ सेटेलमेंट वदिांक
10/04/2002, जो वक अिुिासविक कायषवाही प्रवक्रया से
संबवन्द्धत हैं, पर वलवखत पैरा 6 (B) के अिुसार श्री जगपाल वसंह,
गाोंडा िाखा, वजला- अलीगढ को बैंक सेवा से बखाषस्त करिे का
दंड वदया जाये।."

13. The aforesaid order was also
communicated to petitioner on the same
date. The petitioner thereafter filed an
Appeal before the Appellate Authority on
21.01.2016, but the same was dismissed by a
reasoned order dated 21.03.2016.

14. Aforesaid orders were challenged at
the behest of petitioner by way of filing a Writ
Petition No.18744 of 2006.

15. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide judgement dated 21.03.2018 has allowed
aforesaid writ petition and quashed the
impugned orders therein with certain directions
to Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order.
Relevant part of said judgment is reproduced
hereinafter:

"A
perusal
of
the
impugned
punishment order dated 10.12.2015, passed by
the disciplinary authority shows that it has been
passed stating that he has granted opportunity
of personal hearing to the petitioner on
01.12.2015,
as
disciplinary
authority,
exercising his discretion in just and legal
manner by going through the charge sheet
issued to the petitioner, his reply, his earlier
service record and concerned file and personal
hearing granted to him, etc. He has come to the
conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the
lapses mentioned in the proposed punishment
order and therefore, he does not finds any
reason to convert the proposed punishment
order and has passed the order of dismissal
dated 10.12.2015, against the petitioner.

This order does not records what
consideration was done by the disciplinary
authority regarding the charges against the
petitioner, his reply thereto, his service record
and concerned file and also what was stated by
the petitioner during personal hearing granted
to him on 01.12.2015 and how it was
considered by the disciplinary authority. It is
proved that the procedure of granting hearing
to the delinquent employee, prior to the passing
of the proposed punishment order was observed
in the case of the petitioner but what
consideration of his reply was made by the
disciplinary authority has not been recorded at
all. The procedure does not requires ritualistic
compliance of procedure by the disciplinary
authority, in disciplinary proceedings, rather,
its purposes to arrive at the truth with the help
of the procedure. The consideration of reply
was required to be proved by recording of
reasons but in the impugned final punishment
order, there are no reasons recorded regarding
any consideration mentioned in the order itself.
No punishment order can be held to be
legal, if it is not based on any consideration
and
reasons
arising
out
of
the
consideration duly recorded in the order.
Therefore, the impugned punishment order
dated
10.12.2015,
passed
by
the
disciplinary authority can not be sustained.
The appellate order wrongly confirmed the
punishment order of the disciplinary
authority,
which
suffers
from
gross
illegality of non consideration of the reply
of
the
petitioner
to
the
proposed
punishment order.

In view of the above facts and the
legal position emerging from the record,
the
order
of
disciplinary
authority,
Regional Manager, Region-II, Regional
Business Office, State Bank of India,
Aligarh, dated 10.12.2015 and also the
appellate order dated 21.03.2016 passed by
Deputy General Manager (Business and
Operations)
State
Bank
of
India,
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Administrative Office, Agra are hereby
quashed.
The
respondent
no.4,
the
Disciplinary Authority is directed to pass
afresh order taking into account, the
Objection
dated
01.12.2015
of
the
petitioner and also after complying with
Clause-12 (c) of the Settlement dated
10.04.2002 by recording his findings
regarding the gravity of misconduct, the
previous record, if any, of the petitioner
and other aggravating or extenuating
circumstance. The disciplinary authority
shall consider the findings of the enquiry
officer recorded in the enquiry report dated
09.10.2015 after consideration whether the
findings are based on evidence or not. The
petitioner
shall
be
continued
under
suspension
and
shall
be
paid
his
subsistence allowance from the date of his
suspension till the date of passing of the
fresh order of the disciplinary authority in
accordance with law. The disciplinary
authority is expected to pass fresh order in
accordance with law within a period of 3
months from today. Since the respondents
are represented, the information of this
order is deemed on them through their
Counsel.

The writ petition is allowed to the
extent stated above. There shall be no
order as to costs."

16.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
petitioner
submitted
an
application
alongwith a copy of aforesaid order to
Disciplinary Authority on 04.04.2018 and
Disciplinary Authority after considering
relevant documents, charge-sheet, records
of inquiry proceedings, submissions and
arguments made by the prosecution,
defence, Inquiry Officer's report and
objections filed by the petitioner, by an
order dated 20.06.2018 decided to impose
upon petitioner a penalty of "Dismissal
from service without notice" in terms of
para 6 (a) of Memorandum of Settlement
dated 10.04.2002 on disciplinary action and
procedure thereof. Relevant part of said
order is reproduced hereinafter:

"Therefore in view of the above
documentary/Circumstantial evidences, I
hold the charge levelled against EPA as
substantiated.

DA's findings

I have gone through all the
relevant documents, the enquiry officer's
report, the submission made by the parties
and objections dated 30.11.2015 made by
EPA Sh.Jagpal Singh which were received
on 01.12.2015 and my findings are as
under:

The enquiry officer in his finding
in respect of allegation no.1 has relied
upon document Dex-1/110-130 which is
copy of Police diary report. From the
perusal of the said document it diary
clearly reveals that the EPA admitting his
involvment in the fraud perpetrated upon
the Bank had disclosed before the Police
that he had conspired with Sh.Ajit Kumar
Sharma and shared the information with
other persons in respect of the account of
Smt. Asha Pundhir with others. The
contention of the EPA that on his refusal of
bribery to the Police, he was falsely
implicated in the case is not tenable.
Further, the contention of the EPA in
submissions/objections dated 30.11.2015
that the Bank is inclined to proceed against
him only in view of the registration of case
by the Police under grave sections is also
not tenable. Document DEX 1/110-130
clearly reveals that the EPA admitted
before the Police that he had conspired
with Sh. Ajit Kumar Sharma and shared
7 All. Jag Pal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
521
the information with others in respect of
the account of Smt. Asha Pundhir. The
other contentions raised by EPA in his
objections dated 30.11.2015 are neither
relevant nor material to the charge.

Thus, I agree with the views/
findings of the Inquiry Authority and hold
allegation PROVED.

xxx

DA's findings:-

I have gone through the relevant
documents, record of enquiry proceedings,
enquiry officers, findings of the enquiry
officer and the submissions/objections
made by EPA Sh.Jagpal Singh dated
30.11.2015 received on 01.12.2015 and my
comments are as under:

The enquiry officer in his findings
in respect of allegation no.2 has relied
upon Document Dex 1/110-130 and the
deposition of PW 1 Sh. Manoj Kumar, the
then Branch Manager of Gonda Branch.
Document Dex 1/110-130 is copy of Police
diary report. The relevant portion of case
diary reveals that the EPA had admitted
before the Police that he had conspired
with Sh.Ajit Kumar Sharma and others in
the commission of fraud in respect of
account of Smt. Asha Pundhir. PW I Sh.
Manoj Kumar has also deposed that the
EPA Sh. Jagpal Singh had admitted
commission of fraud before the Police in
his presence. The EPA in his submission
has simply disowned his involvement in the
fraud and has tried to shift the blame on
others. Further, the EPA in his objections
dated 30.11.2015 has denied the Charge.
He has submitted that allegations made
against him are baseless and that the bank
has proceeded against him in a prejuidiced
manner. He has further submitted that in
the course of enquiry proceedings Sh.
Shree Chand Meena, Chief Manager was
not produced for cross examination and the
audio/video recording of his admission
before the Police was also not produced.
The submissions/objections of EPA are not
tenable. The statement of Sh. Shree
Chand Meena has not been relied upon by
the enquiry officer as evidence against Sh.
Jagpal
Singh.
Further,
mere
non
production of audio/video recordings of
admission of the EPA does not vitiate the
statement of Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh.
Further, from the perusal of document
Dex 1/110-130 it reveals that the EPA had
admitted before the Police that he had
conspired with Sh. Ajit Kumar Sharma
and others in the commission of fraud in
respect of account of Smt. Asha Pundhir.
PW I Sh. Manoj Kumar has also stated
that in his presence, the EPA Sh. Jagpal
Singh had admitted before the Police as to
commission of fraud by him in conspiracy
with Sh. Ajit Kumar Sharma and others.

Thus, I agree with the views/
findings of the Inquiry Authority and hold
allegation PROVED.

xxx

DA's Findings

I have gone through the relevant
documents, record of enquiry proceedings,
enquiry officers, findings of the enquiry
officer and the submission/objections made
by EPA sh. Jagpal Singh dated 30.11.2015
received on 01.12.2015 and my comments
are as under:

The enquiry officer in his findings
has relied upon document Pex-9/1-12.
Perusal of these documents reveals that
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fraud amount has been transferred in
Recalled Assets account by the Bank. The
EPA in his submissions has just tried to
shift the blame on others. He has further
alleged that these documents are made and
executed by the Bank. The contentions of
EPA
are
not
tentable.
Perusal
of
documents Pex-9/1-12 clearly reveals that
amount defrauded from the account of
Smt. Asha Pundhir has been transferred
in Recalled Assets account by the Bank.
As such, a loss of Rs.55.20 lacs and
reputational loss as well have been caused
to the Bank. The EPA in his submissions
has not disputed the loss to the Bank.

Thus, I agree with the views/ findings
of Inquiry Authority and hold allegation
PROVED.

xxx

DA'S FINAL VIEWS:

I have carefully examined the
relevant document, submissions/ arguments
made by prosecution, defence & entire record
of enquiry proceedings. In exercise of my
discretionary power, individually, I have
observed that all the three charges against Sh.
Jagpal Singh, Assistant had been Proved and
he has committed the following irregulartities:-

"1. श्री जगपाल वसंह के द्वारा बैंक की गोपवियता को
भंग वकया गया।

2. श्री जगपाल वसंह की वमलीभगत से यह धोखाधडी
की गयी ।

3. श्री जगपाल वसंह के इस कृत्य से बैंक को 55.20
लाख रु की हावि हुई तथा बैंक की छवव को अपूणषिीय क्षवत पहुंची है।

Thus, Sh. Jagpal Singh, Assistant is
guilty of gross misconduct. I have gone through
the previous record of Sh. Jagpal Singh,
Assistant, the Submission dated 30.11.2015
made by him in the course of personal hearing
given to him on 01.12.2015 and other
extenuating circumstances. The irregularities
submitted by Sh. Jagpal Singh, Assistant
amounts to gross misconduct. His acts have
resulted into a loss of Rs. 55.20 Lakhs to the
bank.

The irregularities committed by him
also caused the reputational loss to the bank.
Accordingly I have decided to impose upon Sh.
Jagpal Singh, Assistant a penalty of "dismissal
from service without notice" in terms of Para 6
(a) of memorandum of settlement dated
10.04.2002
on
disciplinary
action
and
procedure there off. Further. the period of
suspension of Sh. Jagpal Singh, Assistant will
be treated as such i e. he will not be paid salary,
any other allowances other than subsistence
allowance for the period of his suspension and
it will not be reckoned in his service in the bank.
Further, the gratuity, if any payable to him is
forfeited in terms of Section 4 (6) (a) of payment
of gratuity act 1972."

(Emphasis supplied)

17. Petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal
before Appellate Authority on 28.06.2018,
however, it was dismissed vide an undated
order.

18.
Above
referred
departmental
charge-sheet dated 28.02.2015, order dated
20.06.2018 passed by the Disciplinary
Authority and an undated order passed by
the Appellate Authority are under challenge
before this Court in present Writ Petition.

19. Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi,
learned
counsel
for
petitioner,
has
submitted that in earlier round of litigation
a Coordinate Bench of this Court has
7 All. Jag Pal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
523
allowed writ petition, set aside punishment
order and matter was remitted back with
certain directions, which includes that
Disciplinary Authority will pass a fresh
order taking into account the objections
dated 01.12.2015 submitted by petitioner as
well as provisions of Clause 12(c) of
Memorandum
of
Settlement
dated
10.04.2002. Disciplinary Authority was
also directed that the findings of Inquiry
Officer recorded in inquiry report dated
09.10.2015 shall also be examined and
consider that whether the findings are
based on evidence on record. However,
Disciplinary Authority has not followed the
directions in its letter and spirit and by
awarding punishment the error committed
earlier was perpetuated.

20. Petitioner was not involved in
alleged fraud and alleged loss directly or
indirectly. He was not authorized to do the
work which was alleged by Complainant.
The Complainant has not named petitioner
as one of the erring Officer. Reply dated
01.12.2015 has essentially adopted the
earlier reply dated 06.10.2015, however,
said reply was not considered afresh. Video
recording of alleged confession was not
produced during departmental inquiry and
no opportunity was granted to crossexamine any witness.

21. Learned counsel for petitioner has
referred the statement of PW-1 recorded in
criminal trial that Complainant has not
even referred his name in entire statement.
He also referred that allegations were made
against
other
Bank
employees
also,
however, they were left with minor
punishment or without any punishment,
whereas without any evidence or reason,
petitioner was awarded major punishment
of dismissal from service.

22. Learned counsel for petitioner
refers the judgments passed by Supreme
Court in Bharat Singh and others vs.
State of Haryana and others, (1988)4
SCC 534; Radha Raman Samanta vs.
Bank of India and others, (2004)1 SCC
605; Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab
National Bank and others, (2009)2 SCC
570; Rajendra Yadav vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others, (2013)3
SCC 73; and, United Bank of India vs.
Biswanath Bhattacharjee, (2022) 13 SCC
329 and much reliance was placed on
following paragraphs of Roop Singh Negi
(supra):

"14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
The enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function. The charges levelled
against the delinquent officer must be
found to have been proved. The enquiry
officer has a duty to arrive at a finding
upon
taking
into
consideration
the
materials brought on record by the parties.
The purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer
against all the accused by itself could not
be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to
prove the said documents. The management
witnesses merely tendered the documents
and did not prove the contents thereof.
Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the
enquiry officer on the FIR which could not
have been treated as evidence.

15. We have noticed hereinbefore
that the only basic evidence whereupon
reliance has been placed by the enquiry
officer was the purported confession made
by the appellant before the police.
According to the appellant, he was forced
to sign on the said confession, as he was
tortured in the police station. Appellant
being an employee of the bank, the said
confession should have been proved. Some
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence should have been brought on
record to show that he had indulged in
stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly,
there was no direct evidence. Even there
was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the
report demonstrates that the enquiry officer
had made up his mind to find him guilty as
otherwise he would not have proceeded on
the basis that the offence was committed in
such a manner that no evidence was left."

23. Learned counsel for petitioner also
submitted that departmental inquiry was
based on alleged confession of petitioner
recorded
before
Police
in
criminal
investigation, which cannot be read in
present departmental proceedings.

24. Per contra, Sri Pankaj Srivastava,
learned counsel appearing for RespondentBank submitted that directions passed by
this Court in earlier round of litigation were
strictly complied with. Petitioner's reply
was considered as well as inquiry report
was also considered and since there were
sufficient
evidence
against
petitioner,
impugned punishment order was passed.
He also submitted that scope of judicial
review in departmental proceedings is very
limited as well as nature to prove the
charge in departmental inquiry is based on
preponderance of probabilities and it
cannot be compared with standard of proof
in criminal trial, i.e., to prove a charge
beyond reasonable doubt. He refers a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
State Bank of India vs. A.G.D. Reddy:
2023 INSC 766 wherein scope of judicial
review in disciplinary proceedings was
considered. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment are reproduced hereinafter:

"32. From the above discussion,
it is clear that it could not be said that the
Enquiry Report, the findings of the
Disciplinary Authority and the order of the
Appointing Authority are based on no
evidence or are perverse. Even if we
eschew the report insofar as the aspect of
non-submission
of
control
form,
the
transgression of the area of operation and
non-declaration of the immovable property
and certain other charges are concerned,
the order of penalty can be sustained.

33. As has been demonstrated
above, the aspects of failure to conduct
periodic inspection and the negligence in
not stipulating the taking of immovable
property as collateral security in the case
of M/s Saraswathi Fabricators in spite of
the party offering it, constrain us to
conclude that there was material on record
for the appellant to pass the order of
penalty.

34. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Senior
Counsel, relying upon the judgments of this
Court in Nand Kishore Prasad vs. State of
Bihar and Others, (1978) 3 SCC 366 and
Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and
Others, (1985) 3 SCC 378 contends that
the Disciplinary Authority should arrive at
its conclusion on the basis of some
evidence with some degree of definiteness
pointing to the guilt of the delinquent in
respect of the charge against him. He
would contend that a suspicion cannot be
allowed to take the place of proof and
scrupulous care must be taken to see that
the innocent are not punished by recording
findings merely based on ipse dixit of the
Enquiry Officer. We are unable to accept
the contention that the principles laid down
in the above judgments are attracted to the
present case. The judgments cited are
clearly distinguishable, for the reasons that
we have set out hereinabove, while
analyzing the facts of the present case.

35. Shri Sanjay Kapur, learned
counsel for the Bank relies on State Bank
7 All. Jag Pal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
525
of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar and
Another, (2011) 10 SCC 249. In that
judgment the scope of judicial review of
departmental proceedings was set out and
the principle laid down in State of A.P. vs.
S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, was
reiterated, which reads as follows:-

"This Court has held in State of
A.P. and Others v. S. Sree Rama Rao (AIR
1963 SC 1723, para 7):

"7. ... The High Court is not
constituted in a proceeding under Article
226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal
over the decision of the authorities holding
a departmental enquiry against a public
servant: it is concerned to determine
whether the enquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf, and according to
the procedure prescribed in that behalf,
and whether the rules of natural justice are
not violated. Where there is some evidence,
which the authority entrusted with the duty
to hold the enquiry has accepted and which
evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent officer is
guilty of the charge, it is not the function of
the High Court in a petition for a writ
under Article 226 to review the evidence
and to arrive at an independent finding on
the evidence."

13. Thus, in a proceeding under
Article 226 of the Constitution, the High
Court does not sit as an appellate authority
over the findings of the disciplinary
authority and so long as the findings of the
disciplinary authority are supported by
some evidence the High Court does not reappreciate the evidence and come to a
different and independent finding on the
evidence. This position of law has been
reiterated in several decisions by this Court
which we need not refer to, and yet by the
impugned judgment the High Court has re-
appreciated the evidence and arrived at the
conclusion that the findings recorded by
the enquiry officer are not substantiated by
any material on record and the allegations
leveled against the respondent no.1 do not
constitute any misconduct and that the
respondent no.1 was not guilty of any
misconduct."

36. It is now well settled that the
scope
of
judicial
review
against
a
departmental enquiry proceeding is very
limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal
and a review on merits of the decision is
not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is
to examine whether the decision-making
process is legitimate and to ensure that the
findings are not bereft of any evidence. If
the records reveal that the findings are
based on some evidence, it is not the
function of the court in a judicial review to
re-appreciate the same and arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence. This
lakshman rekha has been recognized and
reiterated in a long line of judgments of
this Court."

25. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the material available
on record.

26. As referred above, the Coordinate
Bench while allowing writ petition filed in
earlier round of litigation has passed
directions and on perusal of material on
record the said directions, which includes,
to consider the reply of petitioner, to
consider the inquiry report and to pass a
fresh reasoned order, were substantially
followed and complied with. Therefore,
any argument in this regard is rejected.

27. The other arguments of learned
counsel for petitioner, i.e., charges levelled
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against petitioner was proved on basis of
statements recorded during investigation by
Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as
his
alleged
confession,
have
some
substance and for that the Court has
carefully perused the discussion made in
impugned order by Disciplinary Authority.
Relevant part of impugned order has
already been quoted in earlier paragraph of
this judgment.

28. So far as Charge No. 1 is
concerned, it is only based on a statement
of petitioner recorded before Police in
investigation that he has shared details of
Bank account of a customer to other coaccused. With regard to Charge No. 2, it is
based on statement of PW-1 recorded
during the disciplinary proceedings that
delinquent/ petitioner has confessed before
Police that he has committed fraud and no
other discussion or independent evidence
was called or considered.

29. The statement made before Police
Authorities cannot be made a sole ground
to punish petitioner in a departmental
proceedings. Inquiry ought to have been
conducted by considering independent
evidence but it appears that in present case
the
departmental
proceedings
were
proceeded only on basis of statements
recorded during investigation including of
the petitioner.

30. Third charge is with regard to loss.
However, once there is no evidence that
petitioner
was
involved
directly
or
indirectly in crime or fraud, which has
caused loss to customer or bank, he could
not be made solely responsible for such act.

31. Preponderance of probability does
not mean that entire proceeding would be
made on probabilities only. There must be
some evidence to support the allegations
levelled
against
delinquent
employee.
There must be existence of a fact, being
more probable than its non existence. In
this regard the Court takes note of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
Union of India and others vs. Subrata
Nath, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617
wherein it is observed that Court cannot reappreciate
the
evidence
led
during
departmental proceedings and the relevant
paragraph of the judgment is reproduced
hereinafter:

"27. We are unable to commend
the approach of the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench. There was no good
reason for the High Court to have entered
the domain of the factual aspects relating
to the evidence recorded before the Inquiry
Officer. This was clearly an attempt to
reappreciate
the
evidence
which
is
impermissible in exercise of powers of
judicial review vested in the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. We are of the opinion that both, the
learned Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench, fell into an error by setting
aside the order of dismissal from service
imposed
on
the
respondent
by
the
Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the
Appellate Authority."

32. The Court further takes note of
another judgment passed by Supreme Court
in Biswanath Bhattacharjee (supra) that
if
departmental
proceeding,
which
culminated in penalty, was based on
confessional statement made before Police
and no other material, the punishment order
can be interfered.

33. As referred above, in the present
case, no independent witness was examined
and the only material considered was the
7 All. Jagbhan Singh & Ors. Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation & Ors.
527
statement of the petitioner recorded during
Police investigation. The witness examined
has only stated that petitioner has accepted
his
guilt
before
the
Police
during
investigation, therefore, such nature of
evidence would be failed if tested at the
anvil of "preponderance of probability".

34. In aforesaid circumstances, the
Court is of the opinion that it is a case of no
evidence. The impugned order is failed in
the test of preponderance of probability
since it was based only on alleged
confessional statement made by petitioner
before Police, which cannot be read in its
entirety
against
the
petitioner
in
a
disciplinary
proceeding
without
any
independent support. There is absolutely no
material on record that petitioner was
directly or indirectly committed alleged
fraud. Therefore, facts of present case
warrants interference.

35. In the result, writ petition is
allowed.