# Md. Tarique v. Union Of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 149
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-06
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 9579 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/md-tarique-v-union-of-india-ors-53720
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Gyan Prakash Shrivastava

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the punishment of dismissal
(modified to removal) imposed upon a
Bank
Manager
for
sanctioning
and
disbursing CKCC / loan accounts with
serious procedural lapses and abuse of
lending
powers,
without
following
mandatory lending norms, and committing
repeated dereliction of duty, warrants
interference under Article 226.

HEADNOTE
Service
Law
-
Bank
Officer
-
Departmental
Inquiry
-
Procedural
Irregularities in Loan Sanction - Abuse of
Lending
Powers
-

Rule
6(17)
of
Regulations, 1976 not mandatory - Writ
dismissed.
Held
:
 Petitioner was charged with 58 charges relating
to 413 CKCC loan accounts involving serious
irregularities including excess sanction and
disbursement of CKCC limits, enhancement of
limits
without
justification
or
supporting
documents, avoiding multilayer sanctioning, and
manipulating limits in CBS. Inquiry Officer
conducted proceedings on multiple dates;
petitioner was supplied with all documents,
permitted
to
cross-examine
management
witnesses
and
submit
637
documents.
Disciplinary Authority considered each charge
independently, along with documents, defence
submissions and findings of the Inquiry Officer
before concluding misconduct. Even though no
allegation of fraud or loss was proved, actual
loss is not necessary; dereliction of duties and
failure to follow mandatory procedure is
sufficient to sustain penalty. Rule 6(17) of the
Central Bank of India Officer Employees
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 is not
mandatory;
since
petitioner
received
full
opportunity
and
did
not
request
oral
examination, non-recording of his statement
does not vitiate proceedings. Writ petition
dismissed. (Paras 27-30, 36, 37) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Union of India and others vs. Mohd. Ramzan
Khan, 1991 (1) SCC 588; Moni Shanker vs.
Union of India and another, 2008 (3) SCC 484;
Union
Bank
of
India
vs.
Bishwanath
Bhattacharjee, 2022 (13) SCC 329; Ram Avtar
vs. Chairman and MD and others, Writ Petition
No. 57592/2005; Apparel Export Promotion
Council vs. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625; SBI
vs. Bela Bagchi and others, Civil Appeal No.
5364 of 2005; Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman
and Disciplinary Authority and others, 1997 SC
357; UPSRTC vs. Suresh Chand Sharma, 2010
(6) ...; Union of India vs. Managobinda
Samantaray, Civil Appeal No. 1622-1623/2022;
Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil
Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 219/2023; Union of
India vs. P. Gunasekaran; B.C. Chaturvedi vs.
Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Acts
Central Bank of India Officer Employees
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976;
Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Bank
Officer;
Departmental
Proceedings;
Procedural Lapse; CKCC loans; Abuse of Lending
Power;
Inquiry
Officer;
Natural
Justice;
Disproportionate
Punishment;
Rule
6(17);
Removal from Service.

CASE ARISING FROM
Penalty order dated 08.11.2023 (dismissal);
Appellate order dated 03.07.2024 (penalty
modified
to
removal);
Review
order
dated
05.03.2025
(review
rejected)

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Sri Siddharth Khare
Advs For Respondents: A.S.G.I.; Sri Gyan
Prakash Shrivastava

## Text

8 All. Md. Tarique Vs. Union of India & Ors.
149
2021, under Section 3/4 of Railway
Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966,
Police Station R.P.F. Ghaziabad, District
Ghaziabad,
as
well
as
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
8.2.2022, against the applicant Tej Karan
Meena, pending in the court of Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
(N.R.),
Ghaziabad are, hereby, quashed.

14.
Registrar
Compliance
is
directed to send the copy of the order to the
trial Court immediately.
---------
(2025) 8 ILRA 149
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 9579 of 2025

Md. Tarique ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Gyan Prakash Shrivastava

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the punishment of dismissal
(modified to removal) imposed upon a
Bank
Manager
for
sanctioning
and
disbursing CKCC / loan accounts with
serious procedural lapses and abuse of
lending
powers,
without
following
mandatory lending norms, and committing
repeated dereliction of duty, warrants
interference under Article 226.

HEADNOTE
Service
Law
-
Bank
Officer
-
Departmental
Inquiry
-
Procedural
Irregularities in Loan Sanction - Abuse of
Lending
Powers
-

Rule
6(17)
of
Regulations, 1976 not mandatory - Writ
dismissed.
Held
:
 Petitioner was charged with 58 charges relating
to 413 CKCC loan accounts involving serious
irregularities including excess sanction and
disbursement of CKCC limits, enhancement of
limits
without
justification
or
supporting
documents, avoiding multilayer sanctioning, and
manipulating limits in CBS. Inquiry Officer
conducted proceedings on multiple dates;
petitioner was supplied with all documents,
permitted
to
cross-examine
management
witnesses
and
submit
637
documents.
Disciplinary Authority considered each charge
independently, along with documents, defence
submissions and findings of the Inquiry Officer
before concluding misconduct. Even though no
allegation of fraud or loss was proved, actual
loss is not necessary; dereliction of duties and
failure to follow mandatory procedure is
sufficient to sustain penalty. Rule 6(17) of the
Central Bank of India Officer Employees
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 is not
mandatory;
since
petitioner
received
full
opportunity
and
did
not
request
oral
examination, non-recording of his statement
does not vitiate proceedings. Writ petition
dismissed. (Paras 27-30, 36, 37) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Union of India and others vs. Mohd. Ramzan
Khan, 1991 (1) SCC 588; Moni Shanker vs.
Union of India and another, 2008 (3) SCC 484;
Union
Bank
of
India
vs.
Bishwanath
Bhattacharjee, 2022 (13) SCC 329; Ram Avtar
vs. Chairman and MD and others, Writ Petition
No. 57592/2005; Apparel Export Promotion
Council vs. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625; SBI
vs. Bela Bagchi and others, Civil Appeal No.
5364 of 2005; Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman
and Disciplinary Authority and others, 1997 SC
357; UPSRTC vs. Suresh Chand Sharma, 2010
(6) ...; Union of India vs. Managobinda
Samantaray, Civil Appeal No. 1622-1623/2022;
Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil
Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 219/2023; Union of
India vs. P. Gunasekaran; B.C. Chaturvedi vs.
Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Acts
Central Bank of India Officer Employees
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976;
Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Bank
Officer;
Departmental
Proceedings;
Procedural Lapse; CKCC loans; Abuse of Lending
Power;
Inquiry
Officer;
Natural
Justice;
Disproportionate
Punishment;
Rule
6(17);
Removal from Service.

CASE ARISING FROM
Penalty order dated 08.11.2023 (dismissal);
Appellate order dated 03.07.2024 (penalty
modified
to
removal);
Review
order
dated
05.03.2025
(review
rejected)

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Sri Siddharth Khare
Advs For Respondents: A.S.G.I.; Sri Gyan
Prakash Shrivastava

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

1.
Petitioner
was
appointed
as
Probationary Officer in Central Bank of
India on basis of a selection proceedings
conducted
by
Institute
of
Banking
Personnel
Selection
(IBPS).
He
was
granted appointment as Assistant Manager
(Scale-1) and posted at Lucknow Zone in
July, 2013. He was promoted as Officer
Middle Management Grade (Scale-II) in
April, 2016 and granted posting at
Ahmedabad Zone and after working there
till July, 2019, on his own request, he was
transferred back to Lucknow Zone and
posted as Manager (Scale-II Officer) at
Branch Office Padleganj under Gorakhpur
Region on 25.07.2019. Within few days, he
was transferred and posted as Branch
Manager at Branch Office Ramkola under
Gorakhpur Region on 29.07.2019. In
September, 2021, he was transferred to
Lead Bank Office, Padrauna, Kushinagar
where he lastly worked. An Internal Audit
was
conducted
by
Regional
Branch
Manager
of
Ramkola
Branch
where
petitioner has worked as Branch Manager
from 29.07.2019 to 22.09.2021 and a
Regional Branch Internal Audit report was
submitted in September, 2020, wherein
number of objections were pointed out and
according to petitioner, objections were
rectified also and a compliance report was
submitted by one Dharmendra Pandey on
03.03.2021.

2. Subsequently, a Checking Report
of Audit Compliance of RBIA was
obtained from one Ratnesh Ranjan, then
posted as Senior Manager at Branch
Office
Padrauna,
however,
he
has
submitted
an
adverse
report
on
28.10.2021, that level of compliance was
found unsatisfactory.

3. In pursuance of above reports,
petitioner was served with a memo dated
02.11.2021 and an explanation was sought
within a period of 7 days explaining the act
of omission and commission mentioned
therein as well as why disciplinary action
be not initiated against him.

4. In response to above referred
memo, petitioner has submitted a detailed
reply dated 27.11.2021, however, it was not
found satisfactory and Regional Manager
proceeded to issue a Memorandum dated
27.01.2023
instituting
a
departmental
proceedings against him with regard to
Articles of Charge specified in Annexure-1
and 2 of said Memorandum. Annexure-1
levelled 58 charges against the petitioner
based on Statement of Imputation of
Misconduct specified with regard to each
of said charge in Annexure-2. It was
accompanied by list of Management
documents and witnesses also.
8 All. Md. Tarique Vs. Union of India & Ors.
151

5. On same day, Regional Manager
appointed Mr. Ratnesh Ranjan, Senior
Manager, Branch Office Padrauna as
Inquiry Officer. Inquiry was conducted
between 31.03.2023 to 13.07.2023 on
various dates. Preliminary proceedings
were conducted between 31.01.2023 and
05.03.2023 and between 06.03.2023 and
25.05.2023. Presenting Officer produced
total number of 1403 documents. Between
26.05.2023 and 15.06.2023, oral testimony
of Ashutosh Vikram, Branch Manager,
Ramkola Branch was concluded. The
petitioner was provided a chance to cross
examine him. The petitioner has presented
total
number
of
637
documents.
Proceedings
were
conducted
on
05.07.2023,
06.07.2023,
07.07.2023,
10.07.2023, 11.07.2023, 12.07.2023 and
13.07.2023 and after cross examination,
Presenting Officer as well as petitioner
were granted 15 days' time to submit
defence brief of prosecution/defence.

6. According to petitioner, he was not
examined i.e. his statement was not
recorded though he has submitted a very
detailed defence brief in written.

7. The Inquiry Officer after closing of
inquiry proceedings submitted an Inquiry
Report and served upon the petitioner with a
covering letter dated 08.09.2023. The petitioner
has submitted a very detail objection dated
29.09.2023 to Inquiry Report. On 08.11.2023,
an order was passed by A.G.M., Stressed
Assets Management/Disciplinary Authority
inflicting a penalty of dismissal from service
against
the
petitioner
constituting
disqualification for future employment in terms
of Regulation 4(j) of Central Bank of India
Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal)
"Regulations, 1976" (hereinafter referred to as
"Regulations, 1976").

8. Petitioner being aggrieved by above
referred
order
dated
08.11.2023
has
submitted an Appeal before the Appellate
Authority, which was dismissed by an
order dated 03.07.2024 though penalty of
dismissal
from
service
with
a
disqualification for failure employment was
substituted by a penalty of removal from
service.

9. Petitioner being aggrieved by said
order filed a Review Petition under
Regulation 18 of "Regulations, 1976"
before General Manager, Central Bank of
India, Central Office, Mumbai, however, it
was rejected vide order dated 05.03.2025.

10. Aforesaid orders dated 08.11.2023,
03.07.2024 and 05.03.2025 are impugned
in this writ petition.

11. With consent of learned advocates
for rival parties, this writ petition was
finally heard without exchange of pleadings
since petitioner has filed all relevant
documents along with the writ petition
which is running into about 1400 pages
(Volume I to VII).

12. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Aditendra Singh,
learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Gyan
Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for
respondent-bank have filed their written
submissions reiterating their oral arguments
presented at length.

13. Petitioner was charged with 58
charges. Charges No. 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54,
55 and 56 were related as many as 413
CKCC loan accounts wherein serious
irregularities
were
committed.
For
reference, aforesaid charges are quoted
below :-
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Charge No.48

Mr. Md. Tarique had sanctioned
& disbursed 54 CKCC limits in excess of
actual land holding of borrower. He had
manually prepared process notes in loan
files where he had considered higher land
holding for evaluating CKCC limits. Thus,
he had abuses his lending powers as a
Branch Manager, done reckless financing,
concealed the facts from Higher Authorities
& Violate the Loan Policy.

Charge No.49

Mr. Md. Tarique had sanctioned
& disbursed 50 CKCC accounts to
borrowers who had availed limits with
other financial institution (case of double
finance)
which
were
reflected
in
Khatauni/CIC reports. Thus, he did not
follow the norms of lending and did uot
carry out proper due diligence and KYC of
the borrower and abuses his lending
powers.

Charges No.50

Mr. Md. Tarique has sanctioned
& disbursed 109 CXCC loan accounts
where limit fed in CBS in excess of actual
sanction (Limit manipulated in CBS). Thus,
he did not adhere to the prescribed lending
norms with regard to processing a the
proposals and abuses his lending powers.

Charge No.52

Mr. Md. Tarique has sartctioned
& disbursed 174 CKCC loan accounts
where
multilayer
approach
(Joan
sanctioned
by
single-handedly)
while
processing and sanctioning not followed.
Thus, bu did not adhere to the prescribed
lending norms with regard to processing
and sanctioning of the proposals and
abuses his lending powers.

Charge No.53

Mr. Md. Tarique has sanctioned
& disbursed 17 CKCC loan accounts
where limits were enhanced several times
in a financial year, without any cause &
justification. Thus, he had abuses his
lending powers, concealed the facts from
higher authorities & violated the Loan
Policy while processing and sanctioning of
the CKCC loan proposals.

Charge No.54

Mr. Md. Tarique has sanctioned
& disbursed 17 personal & pension loan
accounts where loan amount sanctioned in
excess of eligibility of borrower. Thus, he
had abuses his lending powers, concealed
the facts from higher authorities & violated
the Loan Policy while processing and
sanctioning of the loan proposals.

Charge No.55

Mr. Md. Tarique has sanctioned
& enhanced 16 MSME Loan accounts
despite of withholding his lending powers
by Regional Office, Gorakhpur vide its
letter no. RO/Credit/2019-20/802 dated
19.03.2020. Thus, he had not obeyed and
failed to carry out the written order of the
competent authority and abused his lending
powers.

Charge No.56

Mr.
Md.
Tarique
has
sanctioned/enhanced/disbursed 26 CKCC
accounts
more
than
175%
without
informing Regional Office and not created
Bank's charge over Khatauni. He had
violated the instruction of CO given in
letter no. CO: ARD-FI:GM:2020-21-234
D24.08.2021. Thus, he had not obeyed and
failed to carry out the written order of the
higher authority and abuses his lending
powers."

14. Learned Senior Advocate by
referring
written
submissions
has
vehemently submitted that in the entire
inquiry report and order of Disciplinary
Authority has not alleged any fraud or there
was no allegation of fabricating documents
or that loan sanction or limit was increased
was contrary to law. There was no
8 All. Md. Tarique Vs. Union of India & Ors.
153
allegation against the petitioner of ulterior
motive or he has done any unlawful act
which has caused loss to respondent-bank.
Even on proved misconduct, since there
was no proof of loss to bank, the
punishment order of removal from service
was
unwarranted
and
shockingly
disproportionate also.

15. Learned Senior Advocate also
submitted that total number of accounts
involved are 513, however, number of
accounts were repeated on more than one
occasion, therefore, actual figure was much
lesser.

16.
A
compliance
report
was
submitted by Ratnesh Ranjan, Senior
Manager, Branch Office Padrauna who has
conducted
Audit
Compliance
Report,
however, he has submitted adverse report
dated 28.01.2021 and despite he was author
of adverse report, still he was appointed as
the Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry
which was absolutely illegal since he has to
prove his adverse report and he could not
go against his own findings. Entire
proceedings were, therefore, suffered with
malafides
and
petitioner
was
highly
prejudiced.

17. Learned Senior Advocate has
further submitted that petitioner has filed a
detailed reply to inquiry report, however,
same was no considered in its entirety. His
detailed defence brief was also not
considered
as
not
been
effectively
mentioned in the impugned order.

18. Learned Senior Advocate has also
referred pleadings of Writ Petition and
written submissions. He has also referred
Regulation 6(17) of "Regulations, 1976"
that petitioner was not orally examined
during course of inquiry proceedings which
was
mandatory.
For
reference,
said
Regulation is quoted below :-

"6 (17). The inquiring may after
the officer employee closed his evidence
and shall if the officer employee is not
getting
himself
examined,
generally
questioning
on
the
circumstances
appearing against him in the evidence for
purposes of enabling the officer employee
to explain any circumstances appearing in
the evidence against him."

19. Learned Senior Advocate has
placed reliance upon following judgments
given more force to his arguments.

"1. Union of India and others vs.
Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 (1) SCC 588;

2. Moni Shanker vs. Union of
India and another, 2008 (3) SCC 484;

3. Union Bank of India vs.
Bishwanath Bhattacharjee, 2022 (13) SCC
329"

20. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondents-Bank has vehemently opposed
above submissions and referred written
submissions and pleadings that there was
no violation of principles of natural justice.
Inquiry was conducted in strict adherence
to Rules and procedures provided in
"Regulations, 1976". The petitioner was
afforded full opportunity to present his
defence and to submit all documents in
defence as well as to cross-examine the
Management witnesses, which he has
availed
effectively.
No
allegation
of
procedural violation or arbitrariness was
raised during inquiry. Allegations were
proved on basis of documents, that there
were repeated procedural lapse. There were
financial irregularities and there were
failure in compliance of Internal Control
Mechanisms.
Dereliction
on
part
of
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner in discharging his duties and
responsibilities
was
proved.
He
was
negligent in sanctioning; processing and
disbursing credit facilities to various
customers
which
may
cause
higher
financial and operational risk. The act of
petitioner was highly prejudicial to interest
of the bank.

21.
Learned
counsel
has
also
submitted that there were clear cut
procedural
lapse.
The
petitioner
has
facilitated diversion of public funds,
violating the trust and confidence reposed
by the bank in him. Loans were sanctioned
and disbursed without following due
diligence. Nature of irregularities were not
mere procedural but it was systematic
failure to exercise due diligence and lapses
led to severe risk exposure. Charges were
proved beyond the preponderance of
probabilities based on the documents and
evidences. The petitioner has not raised
question on impartiality of the Inquiry
Officer during proceedings. On basis of
proved
charges,
punishment
is
not
shockingly disproportionate.

22. Learned counsel for respondentsBank has placed reliance upon following
judgments to support Bank's case :-

"1. Ram Avtar vs. Chairman and
MD
and
others,
Writ
Petition
No.
57592/2005

2. Apparel Export Promotion
Council vs. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625

3. SBI vs. Bela Bagchi and
others, Civil Appeal No. 5364 of 2005

4.
Tara
Chand
Vyas
vs.
Chairman and Disciplinary Authority and
others, 1997 SC 357

5. UPSRTC vs. Suresh Chand
Sharma, 2010 (6) ....

6.
Union
of
India
vs.
Managobinda Samantaray, Civil Appeal
No. 1622-1623/2022

7. Union of India and others vs.
Const. Sunil Kumar, Civil Appeal No.
219/2023

8.
Union
of
India
vs.
P.
Gunasekaran

9. B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of
India, (1995) 6 SCC 749"

23. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the records.

24.
Before
adverting
to
rival
submissions,
Court
takes
note
of
paragraphs 12 and 13 of a judgment passed
by Supreme Court in Boloram Bordoloi
vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others,
(2021) 3 SCC 806 which are quoted below
:-

"12. Even, the last submission of
the learned counsel for the appellant that
the punishment imposed is disproportionate
to the gravity of charges, also cannot be
accepted. The charges framed against the
appellant in the departmental enquiry are
serious and grave. If we look at the
response, in his letter dated 16-8-2005, to
the show-cause notice issued by the
disciplinary authority, it is clear that he
has
virtually
admitted
the
charges,
however, tried to explain that such lapses
occurred due to work pressure. Further he
went to the extent of saying - he is ready
to bear the loss suffered by the Bank on
account of his lapses.

13. The Manager of a bank plays
a vital role in managing the affairs of the
bank. A bank officer/employee deals with
the public money. The nature of his work
demands
vigilance
with
the
in-built
requirement
to
act
carefully.
If
an
officer/employee of the bank is allowed to
8 All. Md. Tarique Vs. Union of India & Ors.
155
act beyond his authority, the discipline of the
bank will disappear. When the procedural
guidelines are issued for grant of loans,
officers/employees are required to follow the
same meticulously and any deviation will lead
to erosion of public trust on the banks. If the
Manager of a bank indulges in such
misconduct, which is evident from the charge
memo dated 18-6-2004 and the findings of the
enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges
are grave and serious. In spite of proved
misconduct
on
such
serious
charges,
disciplinary authority itself was liberal in
imposing the punishment of compulsory
retirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot
be said that the punishment imposed in the
disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is
disproportionate to the gravity of charges. As
such, this submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant also cannot be accepted."

25. Court has already observed on basis
of material that due process was followed in
disciplinary proceedings conducted against
the petitioner. The procedure for imposing
major penalty as prescribed under Regulation
6 of "Regulations, 1976" that inquiry was
conducted by an Inquiry Officer. Charge
sheet was submitted against the petitioner
together with statement of allegations and list
of documents and list of witnesses were also
provided. The petitioner has submitted his
reply within a specified period. On basis of
oral and documentary evidence, Inquiry
Officer has submitted his inquiry report,
therefore, referred procedure was complied
with substantially.

26. So far as Rule 6(17) of "Regulations,
1976" is concerned, it is not mandatory in
nature and since petitioner has already
provided ample opportunities for submitting
his case, opportunity to cross examine the
witnesses, therefore, there was no mandatory
requirement to record his statement if he does
not want to record his statement. The purpose
of statement to ask question on circumstances
against the delinquent, which was satisfied
since entire documentary evidence was
supplied to the petitioner, therefore, the
object
was
satisfied.
Otherwise
also,
petitioner has not asked to exercise provisions
of Regulation 6(17), therefore, in given
circumstances, it could not be a case that if
such
procedure
was
not
substantially
followed, entire inquiry would be vitiated.

27.
As
already
referred
above,
impugned order is running into many pages,
as each charge was dealt with independently
referring
details
of
charge,
argument/submission
of
P.O.,
argument/submission
of
defence/CSOE,
findings of I.A. and findings of Disciplinary
Authority. For reference, scanned images of
details mentioned in regard to Charge No.1
are quoted below :-.
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8 All. Md. Tarique Vs. Union of India & Ors.
157

28. So far as Charge No. 52 is
concerned, it is in regard to irregularities
committed by petitioner in 170 accounts.
The charge is running into 90 pages and for
reference, scanned images of relevant part
of Charge No. 52 showing 174 accounts
where irregularities were committed as well
as trial conclusions are pasted below :-
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8 All. Md. Tarique Vs. Union of India & Ors.
159
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. Court also takes note of summary
of charges and its outcome as well as
conclusion of Disciplinary Authority and
for reference, scanned images of same are
pasted below :-
8 All. Md. Tarique Vs. Union of India & Ors.
161

30. Aforesaid details are discussions
on few charges and from bare reading of it,
Court can easily conclude that Disciplinary
Authority has taken pain to consider each
charge in detail, documents submitted in
order to prove charge, submissions and
defence of petitioner, findings of inquiry
officer and thereafter gave his own
reasoned findings.

31. As referred above, in regard to
Charge No.1, petitioner has sanctioned CC
Limit under Cent Mudra Loan of Rs. 4.50
Lacs on 21.12.2019. Said limit was
enhanced from Rs. 4.50 Lacs to Rs. 24.50
Lacs on 27.10.2020 i.e. within 10 months
and
within
further
six
months,
on
06.02.2021, it was again enhanced from Rs.
24.50 Lacs to 34.50 Lacs. Aforesaid
enhancement was done without proper
decision justification for enhancement of
limit from 4.5 Lacs to 24.50 Lacs and
further to 34.50 Lacs. It was enhanced
without any application, process note,
sanction letter and loan documents i.e.
absolutely
contrary
to
prescribed
procedure. All required documents for
sanctioning loan were also not found. Net
sale of companies were also not verified.
CE RSAI was also not modified. It was a
clear
example
of
misconduct
and
dereliction of duties. Similar irregularities
were committed in other about 50 loan
accounts being part of the charge sheet.

32. Court also takes note of Charge No.
52 which is in regard to 174 CKCC Loan
Accounts wherein petitioner has sanctioned
loan avoiding multilayer approach (loan
sanctioned by single handedly), as such due
process was not followed. Petitioner did not
adhere to prescribed lending norms with
regard to processing and abused his lending
powers. Process note, memo of sanction of
credit loan was to be done by 2 Officers but it
was done by petitioner himself as well as
signature
of
Processing
Officer
was
conspicuously left.

33. The Charge No. 50 was about
irregularities committed in 109 CKCC loan
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accounts where limit was enhanced in CBC
in
excess
of
actual
sanction
(limit
manipulated in CBC) without following
due process.

34. Aforesaid details are sufficient that
petitioner
has
repeatedly
committed
dereliction
of
duties
and
proceeded
contrary to prescribed procedure for
sanctioning loan, enhancing limit or other
connected proceedings. Explanations given
by the petitioner were duly considered and
vague submissions that he was new to said
responsibility
was
rightly
rejected.
Therefore,
as
observed
in
Boloram
Bordoloi (supra) as well as in State of
Rajasthan
vs.
Bhupendra
Singh,
2024:INSC:592 : 2024 SCC Online SC
1908 that once there is no error in decision
making process, outcome of Disciplinary
Authority may not be interfered. Para 29
and 30 of Bhupendra Singh (supra) being
relevant for present case are mentioned
below :-

"29. Evidently, while reappraisal
of facts and evidence is not impermissible
by the High Court, the infirmity in the
underlying order has to be greater than
ordinary. It is not the respondent's case
that due to omissions by the appellants in
substantive
and/or
procedural
compliances, prejudice has ensued to him.
Let us examine the aspect independently
too. The facts reveal that an earlier
removal order was quashed, and a copy of
the Enquiry Report alongwith the RPSC's
opinion was supplied to the respondent.
The respondent, thereafter, received an
opportunity
to
submit
a
written
representation,
which he
availed
of.
Further, he was afforded an opportunity of
hearing as well. In this view, we are unable
to find any violation of the principles of
natural justice.

30. Before the Enquiry Officer,
13 witnesses and 75 documents were
exhibited on behalf of the Authority. 3
witnesses deposed in defence of the
delinquent
employee-respondent.
Considering the evidence on record, the
Enquiry Officer by his report held certain
charges levelled against the respondent to
have
been
proved
in
full/part.
Subsequently, a fresh Removal Order was
passed, agreeing with the conclusions
drawn by the enquiry officer. This Removal
Order cannot be said to be based on 'no
evidence'. On perusal thereof, we find that
the Removal Order is reasoned as on the
aspects where the Disciplinary Authority
disagreed with the Enquiry Officer's report,
reasons therefore have been assigned. On
the areas of agreement, the Removal Order
bears discussion on the relevant evidence."

35. Last argument of quantum of
punishment is also liable to be rejected
since petitioner has committed various
irregularities and was punished after a due
process. Punishment was already reduced
from dismissal from service to removal
from service which does not require any
further interference.

36. Court also takes note that no loss
or allegation of fraud was levelled against
the petitioner, however, it would not favour
case of petitioner since in such cases, actual
loss is not necessary. Once prescribed
procedure for disciplinary proceedings
were followed and it was found that
petitioner was failed to being diligent
towards his duties and evidence was
sufficient to prove charges against him, no
interference is warranted.

37. Considering overall facts and
circumstances of the case, Court does not
find any ground to interfere with impugned
8 All. Anand Swaroop Dohre Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
163
orders. Accordingly, writ petition lacks
merit, hence, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 163
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 19158 of 2024

Anand Swaroop Dohre ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Archana Singh, Bramh Narayan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issues for consideration
(a) Whether the post retirement dues of an
employee serving under the government can be
withheld without there being any permission to
institute disciplinary proceedings under Article
351-A of Civil Service Regulations and

(b) Whether in contemplation of permission,
gratuity and pension amounts can be withheld
taking recourse to the provisions contained
under Article 351-AA r/w 919 A of the Civil
Service Regulations? (Para 7)

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Police Officer of
Subordinate
Rank
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991: Regulations 14(1);
Civil Service Regulations: Section 351-AA
r/w 919 AA - No provision is there that
may empower disciplinary authority to
issue charge sheet to a retired employee
on its own.

Regular enquiry means enquiry after the
issuance of charge sheet to the police officer. So
the three elements become relevant (i) the
police officer must be a serving officer. (ii) The
officer to issue charge sheet must not be
incompetent within the meaning of Rule 13 and
(iii) The officer competent must be of a higher
rank.

The enquiry contemplated is a regular oral
enquiry to be held like in any other department
of a government establishment. A detailed
procedure is laid down and that also does not
refer to any preliminary fact finding enquiry. It
is, therefore, clear that the preliminary fact
finding enquiry is held by the department only in
order to find a prima facie case to form a view
that charges are made out and to substantiate
and prove, then a regular domestic enquiry is
liable to be held and also to find out whether
the delinquent employee is guilty of alleged
misconduct or misappropriation of public money
as the case may be. Hence a preliminary fact
finding enquiry is not part and parcel of any
enquiry contemplated and prescribed for under
the relevant Rules. Therefore, charge-sheet
issued to an employee, after attaining the age
of superannuation, would be invalid for want of
proper sanction. (Para 11)

B. Government reserves its right to
withhold
post
retirement
dues,
etc
permanently or for a time being or in part,
either for an employee being found guilty
of misconduct or for his conviction in the
criminal case or for loss of public money.
The proviso to the said rules becomes very
relevant which provides for holding enquiry if
not instituted either before retirement or after
even during re-employment, if any, only with
the prior sanction of the Governor. (Para 13)

It is a settled legal proposition that the
enquiry only gets initiated with the
issuance of the charge sheet and issuance
of charge-sheet without the sanction of
Governor becomes bad for being de hors
the procedure prescribed. The authority
which may be competent is not vested with any
right to issue a charge sheet to a government
servant or police officers who has already
retired and is no more member of service
without having prior sanction from the Governor
or competent authority parallel to the Governor
which the rules may permit or which the State
may delegate upon a public sector authority or
Corporation etc. Hence, the charge-sheet issued