# Nagendra Kumar Pandey v. General Manager UCO Bank Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 336
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-30
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 65 of 2019
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagendra-kumar-pandey-v-general-manager-uco-bank-lko-ors-49573
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Shrikant Mishra, Avdhesh Shukla, Prashant
Shankar Singh

Held:
Bank employee dismissed for unauthorized
creation of high-value entries in a government
account
using
his
password/ID-Appellant
claimed misuse of credentials by the Branch
Manager and violation of principles of natural
justice-Inquiry Officer found charges provedDisciplinary and Appellate Authorities upheld
dismissal-Court held that as a bank employee,
the appellant had a duty to protect his
ID/password and maintain integrity-Findings of
fact by the disciplinary authorities were based
on full opportunity of hearing-No violation of
natural justice-Dismissal held proportionate to
misconduct.

Appeal dismissed.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. As the petitioner has not pressed
for the other prayers in the writ petition, the
same may be pursued by him before the
appropriate forum.

14. With the aforesaid direction, the
writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 336
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 65 of 2019

Nagendra Kumar Pandey ...Appellant
Versus
General Manager UCO Bank Lko. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Arvind
Kumar Jauharom Meenakshi Singh
Parihar, Prashant Kumar Singh, Udai Pratap

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shrikant Mishra, Avdhesh Shukla, Prashant
Shankar Singh

Held:
Bank employee dismissed for unauthorized
creation of high-value entries in a government
account
using
his
password/ID-Appellant
claimed misuse of credentials by the Branch
Manager and violation of principles of natural
justice-Inquiry Officer found charges provedDisciplinary and Appellate Authorities upheld
dismissal-Court held that as a bank employee,
the appellant had a duty to protect his
ID/password and maintain integrity-Findings of
fact by the disciplinary authorities were based
on full opportunity of hearing-No violation of
natural justice-Dismissal held proportionate to
misconduct.

Appeal dismissed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2
SCC 772

2. Chairman & Managing Director, United
Commercial Bank Vs P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC
364

3. Canara Bank Vs VSK. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC
321

4. M.L. Singla Vs P.N.B., (2018) 18 SCC 21

5.
Division
Bench
judgment
in
Niladri
Chakraborty Vs UCO Bank, Writ-A No. 65358 of
2013, decided on 20.04.2015.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

(1) Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Ms.
Meenakshi Parihar Singh, learned Counsel
for the appellant, Dr. Prashant Shankar
Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the
Bank and Sri Shrikant Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.

(2) This intra-court Appeal has been
filed, challenging the judgment and order
dated 11.12.2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 162 (SS)
of 2014, Nagendra Kumar Pandey v.
General
Manager/Appellate
Authority,
UCO Bank and others, wherein the writ
petition
preferred
by
the
appellantpetitioner has been dismissed.

(3) The annals of the case are that the
appellant/petitioner had joined on the post
of Class IV in the UCO Bank on
17.01.1984 and thereafter he was promoted
on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier on
01.05.2001. Thereafter, he was promoted
on the post of Head Cashier on 04.09.2009
and posted at Renukoot where he stayed
there till 08.12.2009 and subsequently was
12 All. Nagendra Kumar Pandey Vs. General Manager UCO Bank Lko. & Ors.
337
transferred to Jaunpur Branch of the UCO
Bank
where
the
appellant/petitioner
continued to serve as Head Cashier till
passing of the order of dismissal dated
09.01.2013.

(4)

Apparently,
the
appellant/petitioner
was
placed
under
suspension vide order dated 16.08.2011 by
the Assistant General Manager/Disciplinary
Authority/respondent
No.2
in
contemplation
of
some
disciplinary
proceedings and a show cause notice was
also issued on 04.10.2011 levelling certain
allegations
to
the
effect
that
while
functioning as Head Cashier at Jaunpur
Branch on 31.03.2010, the appellant/
petitioner has entered/created an entry of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) in
the account of Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari,
Jaunpur unauthorizedly on the strength of
debit vouchers which were neither signed
by the competent authority nor by the
account holder and the said amount was
withdrawn
in
cash.
Similarly,
on
25.05.2010,
25.01.2011,
27.01.2011,
08.03.2011
and
30.06.2011,
the
appellant/petitioner
has
entered/created
entries of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.7,00,000/-,
Rs.7,50,000/-,
Rs.17,00,000/-,
Rs.5,00,000/-
and
Rs.5,00,000/-
respectively
in
the
account
of
Zila
Panchayat
Raj
Adhikari,
Jaunpur
unauthorizedly on the strength of debit
vouchers, which were neither signed by the
account holder nor by the competent
authority.
Subsequently,
the
aforesaid
amounts were withdrawn in cash.

(5) The appellant/petitioner tendered his
reply on 24.10.2011 denying the allegations
levelled against him and submitted that no
computer was installed on his table and the
appellant/petitioner was never assigned the
duty in the Accounts Department, however he
was only dealing in cash payments in the
bank. He has further pointed out that the
appellant/petitioner never signed any voucher
for the alleged entries and the appellant being
Head Cashier was only assigned the duty to
clear and transfer cheques, vouchers etc. upto
and including Rs.50,000/- independently and
for payment of vouchers upto Rs.50,000/-
jointly with an authorized person.

(6) The aforesaid reply was not found to
be satisfactory and as such accordingly, the
Assistant
General
Manager/Disciplinary
Authority/respondent No.2 issued a charge
sheet
to
the
appellant/petitioner
on
06.02.2012, who in turn submitted his reply
on 21.02.2012. Thereafter, vide notification
dated 26.03.2012, the Chief Manager, UCO
Bank, Renukoot, District Sonbhadra was
appointed as an Inquiry Officer before whom
the appellant/petitioner vide letter dated
18.06.2012 requested for providing of certain
documents with regard to payments having
been made so that the appellant/petitioner
may file his reply in defence. Apparently, the
appellant/petitioner submitted his reply on
19.06.2012 stating that as per Clause 7 of the
Schedule III Part D of the Circular dated
20.05.2010, the duties and functions of the
post of Head Cashier (Class III) are that the
Head Cashier shall independently clear and
transfer cheques, vouchers etc. (where credits
or debits) upto and including Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and cash
vouchers upto Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) jointly with an authorized
person. Since the Bank Manager was
dominating him, he had taken his password
and ID who in turn had misused the same.

(7) It is the case of the appellant that
without considering the reply of the
appellant/petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has
submitted his Inquiry Report on 18.07.2012
to
the
respondent
No.2/Disciplinary
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Authority stating that all the allegations
levelled against him stand proved.

(8) On receipt of Inquiry Report dated
18.07.2012, the respondent No.2 issued a
show cause notice to the appellantpetitioner annexing therewith a copy of the
Inquiry Report, requiring him to submit his
reply within seven days on 25.08.2012. To
this, the appellant-petitioner tendered his
reply on 14.09.2012 before the respondent
No.2 by reiterating his earlier stand. The
appellant/petitioner also submitted that the
appellant/petitioner was assigned the duty
of cash payment and therefore, there was
no occasion for the appellant/petitioner to
enter his ID and password coupled with the
fact that the appellant/petitioner being Head
Cashier - II was not authorized to make
such entries.

(9)

According
to
the
appellant/petitioner, without considering
the
reply
submitted
by
him,
the
Disciplinary Authority/respondent
No.2
had passed the order of dismissal from
service dated 09.01.2013. Against the
dismissal order dated 09.01.2013, the
appellant/petitioner had filed statutory
appeal before the respondent No.1/General
Manager/Appellate
Authority
on
07.03.2013 stating therein that no computer
was provided and the payment/entries was
much more beyond his powers and further,
the documents relied upon by the Inquiry
officer were not provided by the PO,
however the aforesaid grounds have not
been properly considered by the appellate
authority/opposite party No.1. He further
submitted in his reply that when he was on
sanctioned leave on 19.08.2010, about 23
transactions took place and further on
19.02.2011, about 26 transactions took
place and again on 21.02.2011 about 35
transactions took place. According to the
appellant, the then Branch Manager had
misused his password and ID. Besides this,
on the transactions done on 31.03.2010,
25.05.2010,
25.01.2011,
27.01.2011,
18.03.2011 and 30.06.2011, the signature of
the appellant/petitioner was not there.
However, without considering these aspects
of the matter, the Appellate Authority has
rejected
the
appeal
of
the
appellant/petitioner
vide
order
dated
07.09.2013. Thus, it was under the
aforesaid compelling circumstances, the
appellant/petitioner has filed Writ Petition
No. 162 (SS) of 2014 which has been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide
impugned judgment and order dated
09.10.2018.

(10) Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
appellant/petitioner has taken this Court to
various aspects of the matter and has
submitted that as per Bank Circular, the
Head
Cashier
-
II
could
not
had
entered/created any entry over and upto
Rs.50,000/- and therefore, the allegation of
creating the entry of Rs.10,00,000/- was not
justified. Further, he has submitted that the
appellant/petitioner was not provided with
the computer on his desk and thus, it was
difficult for him to keep his password
secured.

(11) Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
appellant/petitioner has submitted that the
finding regarding defalcation of funds by
the appellant/petitioner has never been
returned. Further, due to non-supply of
documents, the appellant/petitioner has
been deprived from submitting proper reply
and defence to the charges so levelled
against him which attracts the violation of
principles of natural justice. In this regard,
he has relied upon the citation of Apex
12 All. Nagendra Kumar Pandey Vs. General Manager UCO Bank Lko. & Ors.
339
Court in the case of State of U.P. v., Saroj
Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC 772].

(12) Learned Senior Advocate has
next submitted that the appellant/petitioner
had served in the Bank for more than 17
years and during this period, not a single
complaint has ever been raised against the
appellant/petitioner and considering the
past services of the appellant/petitioner, he
prays for modification of the dismissal
order passed against him as the dismissal
order passed against him is too harsh and it
does not commensurate with the charges
levelled against him.

(13) On the other hand, Dr. Prashant
Shankar Singh, learned Counsel appearing
for the Bank and Sri Srikant Mishra,
learned
Counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent No.5 have submitted that the
matter in dispute pertains to disciplinary
action taken by the UCO Bank against five
employees posted at UCO Bank, Branch
Jaunpur situated at District Jaunpur and all
the employees were dismissed from service
by the disciplinary authority. One of the
dismissed
employee,
namely,
Niladri
Chakraborty has filed Writ-A No. 65358 of
2013 before High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad which was dismissed vide
judgment and order dated 20.04.2015 by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at
Allahabad. The operative portion of the
order dated 20.04.2015 reads as under:-

"Petitioner in the said inquiry,
has been given full opportunity of hearing
and defence of the petitioner has been to
the effect that password / ID has been
misutilized by others even when he was not
in branch office of the Bank and his
password/ ID has been misutilized by
Panna Lal Manager of the Bank. As far as
scam in question is concerned, same is not
disputed by the petitioner and petitioner
has tried to contend that his password/ID
has been misutilized by another person and
he cannot be held responsible. Disciplinary
authority in the present case has found that
wrongful entries had been made using his
pass
word,
and
It
was
his
own
responsibility to keep secrecy of his
passwords, and to see that not only his but
also other passwords are being kept secret
by the user. He, despite being 2nd in
command, promoted a culture in the branch
where password of some was used even
when the person was away and no suitable
remedial
measure
was
initiated.
Disciplinary Authority has considered each
and every aspect of the matter and has
found that petitioner could not put forward
a strong case to refute the allegations and
charges level against him, rather in his
written brief dated 6.7.2012 submitted by
his defence representative he has proceeded
to
accept
all
deviation.
Disciplinary
Authority found in the written brief, that
petitioner instead of submitting strong case
to refute each and every allegation point
wise, made evasive statement of fact and
based on material that has has come
forward,
Disciplinary
Authority
has
recorded finding of fact that charges are
serious and grave in nature and Bank has
suffered huge financial loss on account of
gross
negligence
displayed
by
the
petitioner. Said finding of fact has been
affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

Once such is the factual situation,
then as far as this Court is concerned, this
Court cannot come to the rescue or
reprieve of the petitioner, as finding of guilt
that has been so returned, is neither
perverse
nor
unreasonable
and
the
punishment that has been so awarded also
cannot be said to be disproportionate to
charges, as petitioner has been holding
position of trust and transaction in question
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have been taken place by using petitioner's
password/ID."

(14) Thereafter, the aforesaid writ
petitioner has filed a review application
which too was dismissed vide order dated
31.07.2015 which reads as under:-

"In
the
garb
of
review
application, petitioner wants re-hearing of
the matter, whereas on the earlier occasion,
after detailed hearing, after recording
finding that petitioner has been afforded
full opportunity of hearing in inquiry,
charges have brought home, as entire
transaction in Bank has taken place by the
use of pass word of petitioner.

In view of this, review application
is dismissed."

(15) Learned Counsel for the Bank
has further submitted that the fraudulent
transactions took place on 31.03.2010,
25.05.2010,
25.01.2011,
27.01.2011,
18.03.2011 and 30.06.2011 and on all these
days, the appellant/petitioner was present in
the Bank. Thus, he cannot say that when he
was on leave, his password/ID has been
misused by some other persons posted at
the Branch.

(16) The Bank's Counsel has next
submitted that the Inquiry Officer as well
as Appellate Authority had given full
opportunity to the appellant/petitioner to
defend himself and the appellant/petitioner
vehemently contested the entire charges
levelled against him and after hearing the
defence of appellant/petitioner, both the
authorities had passed the orders.

(17) Further submission of learned
Counsel appearing for the Bank is that the
appellant/petitioner
was
indulged
in
misappropriation of government subsidy in
collusion with other staff of the Branch and
the Bank has taken action against the staff
who were involved in the scam. Full
opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
appellant/petitioner to defend himself but
the appellant/petitioner failed to prove his
case before the authorities concerned. He
also failed to justify as to what had
prevented him from apprising the higher
officials
well-in-time
if
the
Branch
Manager had at all allegedly misused his
password and I.D., which shows that there
is no plausible defence. In this way it
indicts his involvement in the alleged fraud
alongwith others. Preventive vigilance
measures of the Bank were willfully not
followed with intent to destroy the system
and produce for a preconceived motive.
Thus there was no violation of principles of
natural justice while passing the orders by
the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority
and Appellate Authority.

(18) He next submitted that during
enquiry, the appellant/ petitioner himself
accepted that his USER ID/Password were
misused by others when he was not in the
Branch. The acceptance of the aforesaid
fact by the appellant/petitioner is sufficient
to establish that wrongful entries were
made by using the ID and password of the
appellant/petitioner.
Further,
he
has
submitted that the responsibility of the
appellant/petitioner to keep secrecy of his
password and since the charge levelled
against the appellant/petitioner was proved
in regular enquiry and the punishment
awarded to him is in consonance with the
gravity of charges, the Special Appeal filed
by the appellant/petitioner is liable to be
dismissed.

(19) Lastly, he has submitted that the
pleas raised by the appellant/ petitioner
have already been considered by the
12 All. Nagendra Kumar Pandey Vs. General Manager UCO Bank Lko. & Ors.
341
learned Single Judge and the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge being perfect in all respects,
there is no need to interfere in the
impugned judgment and order.

(20) This Court has considered the
submissions made by the learned Counsel
for the parties at length and perused the
record available on the record of the
present Special Appeal.

(21) It is available from records that
as per Clause 7 of the Schedule III Part D
of the Circular dated 20.05.2010, the duties
and functions of the post of Head Cashier
(Class III) are that the Head Cashier shall
independently clear and transfer cheques,
vouchers etc. (where credits or debits) upto
and including Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) and cash vouchers upto
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
jointly with an authorized person.

(22) From the record, it is evident that
during the period of posting of the
appellant/petitioner at UCO Bank, Jaunpur
Branch, Jaunpur, an entry of Rs.10,00,000/-
was effected in the account of Zila
Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Jaunpur and
subsequently, the said amount was credited
in 20 fictitious savings bank accounts and
thereafter the said amount was withdrawn
from the respective accounts in cash.

(23) The question that arises for
consideration is as to who should be held
responsible for misusing the password/ID
of appellant/ petitioner?

(24) The answer to the above question
is that the appellant/petitioner is himself to be
blamed for the said misuse as he is wholly
responsible for the misuse of his own
password/ID. Once a person is employed in
the Bank and he has been given password/ID,
so long as he is in the Bank, it is the legal and
moral duty of the appellant/petitioner to keep
secrecy of the password/ID. If it is misused,
he ought to have reported the matter to the
higher officials. Knowingly, the appellant/
petitioner himself has shared the password/ID
with then Branch Manager, who in turn has
made some fictitious entries using his
password. Not only on one occasion, but it
was done on innumerable occasions which
are evident from the reply submitted to the
Inquiry Officer/ Disciplinary Authority.

(25)

In
reply
to
the
appellant/petitioner that the limit fixed by
the Bank is Rs.50,000/- being Head Cashier
and since the creation of entry of
Rs.10,00,000/- is beyond the power granted
by the Bank, he is not liable for the alleged
transactions done by the Branch Manager,
who has taken his Password/ID forcibly,
learned Counsel for the Bank has submitted
that the limit fixed by the Bank can be
increased on the request of the Officer
concerned as well as on the request of the
Branch Manager and in the present case, it
has been increased on the request of the
Branch Manager.

(26) From the record, it is also evident
that full audience has been given to the
appellant/petitioner to defend himself but
he failed to prove his case before the
concerned authorities. Thus, principles of
natural justice have not been violated while
conducting the inquiry. Not only the
appellant/petitioner, but also the other
employees who were involved in the
fraudulent transactions done in the said
Branch have been dismissed from service.

(27) The appellant/petitioner has been
given the required documents during the
inquiry proceedings and after considering
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
reply
so
preferred
by
the
appellant/petitioner, the order of dismissal
and the order of appellate authority have
been passed.

(28) That time and again this Court
and the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that
in the matters of banking, the responsibility
and credibility on the person is on the
higher side and devotion to duty as well as
the confidence and trust is to be utmost. In
Chairman & Managing Director, United
Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar (2003)
4 SCC 364 the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that a Bank Officer is required to exercise
higher standards of honesty and integrity.
He deals with the money of the depositors
and the customers. Every Officer/employee
of the bank is required to take all possible
steps to protect the interests of the bank and
to discharge his duties with utmost
integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence
and becoming of a bank officer. Good
conduct and discipline are inseparable from
functioning of every officer/employee of
the bank. Paragraph 14 of the Apex Court
judgment in Chairman & Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank (supra)
says as under:

"14 A bank officer is required to
exercise higher standards of honesty and
integrity. He deals with the money of the
depositors and the customers. Every
officer/employee of the bank is required to
take all possible steps to protect the
interests of the bank and to discharge his
duties with utmost integrity, honesty,
devotion and diligence and to do nothing
which is unbecoming of a bank officer.
Good
conduct
and
discipline
are
inseparable from the functioning of every
officer/employee of the bank. As was
observed by this Court in Disciplinary
Authority-cum-Regional
Manager
v.
Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69:
1996 SCC (L&S) 1194] it is no defence
available to say that there was no loss or
profit
resulted
in
case,
when
the
officer/employee acted without authority.
The very discipline of an organization more
particularly a bank is dependent upon each
of its officers and officers acting and
operating within their allotted sphere.
Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a
breach of discipline and is a misconduct.
The charges against the employee were not
casual in nature and were serious. These
aspects do not appear to have been kept in
view by the High Court."

(29) In the present case, it is available
from records that there are concurrent
findings by the Enquiry officer, Appellate
Authority as well as the learned Single
Bench
of
this
Court
that
the
appellant/petitioner being the employee of
the bank has illegally debited an amount of
Rs. 10,00,000/- from the accounts of the
Zila Panchayat and allegedly his username
& password were used to transfer huge
money in 20 fictitious accounts, which was
subsequently withdrawn. Apparently, the
appellant/petitioner has failed to discharge
his duty as banker and protect the money
and the trust bestowed on him as a Banker
and as such the punishment of dismissal
cannot be said to be disproportionate to the
proved charges. This Court finds that the
Apex Court in Canara Bank v. V.K.
Awasthy (2005) 6 SCC 321, which was a
case of the punishment of dismissal on the
bank employee, with respect to the
quantum of punishment, held that the order
of dismissal passed by the Bank did not
suffer from any infirmity, as in that case the
proved charges clearly established that the
employee failed to discharge his duties with
utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and
diligence and his acts were prejudicial to
12 All. Nagendra Kumar Pandey Vs. General Manager UCO Bank Lko. & Ors.
343
the interest of the Bank. The said judgment
at paragraph Nos. 21, 22 and 29 mentions
as under:

"21. Coming to the question
whether the punishment awarded was
disproportionate, it is to be noted that the
various
allegations
as
laid
in
the
departmental
proceedings
reveal
that
several acts of misconduct unbecoming of a
bank official were committed by the
respondent.

22. It is to be noted that the
detailed charge-sheets were served on the
respondent
employee
who
not
only
submitted
written
reply,
but
also
participated
in
the
proceedings.
His
explanations were considered and the
inquiry officer held the charges to have
been amply proved. He recommended
dismissal from service. The same was
accepted by the disciplinary authority.
The proved charges clearly established
that the respondent employee failed to
discharge his duties with utmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence and his
acts were prejudicial to the interest of the
Bank. In the appeal before the prescribed
Appellate Authority, the findings of the
inquiry officer were challenged. The
Appellate Authority after analysing the
materials on record found no substance
in the appeal.

29. Aforesaid being the position,
the decisions of the learned Single Judge
on the quantum of punishment and of the
Division Bench regarding alleged violation
of the principles of natural justice cannot
be maintained and are, therefore, set aside.
The inevitable conclusion is that the order
of dismissal as passed by the appellant
Bank does not suffer from any infirmity.
Appeal is accordingly allowed, but with no
order as to costs."

(30) To the same effect is the case
reported as M.L.Singla v. Punjab National
Bank ( 2018) 18 SCC 21 which was also a
case of punishment of dismissal imposed
on a Bank employee, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that once it is held that
there is no violation of principle of natural
justice in the domestic enquiry and the
charges are serious in nature, the order of
dismissal cannot be faulted with nor could
be said to be in any way disproportionate to
the gravity of the charges. In the said case,
the punishment of dismissal was held to be
proportionate with the gravity of the
charges and was upheld. Paragraph Nos.
44, 46 and 50 of the said judgment in clear
terms bring out the aforesaid proposition as
under:

"44. Having perused the enquiry
proceedings along with the enquiry report,
we are of the view that no fault of any
nature can be noticed in the domestic
enquiry proceedings for more than one
reason. Firstly, the appellant was given full
opportunity
at
every
stage
of
the
proceedings which he availed; secondly, he
never raised any objection complaining of
any prejudice of any nature being caused to
him before the enquiry officer; thirdly, he
received all the papers/documents filed and
relied upon by Respondent-Bank in support
of the charge-sheet; fourthly, he filed reply,
cross-examined the employer's witnesses,
examined his witnesses in defence, attended
the proceedings and lastly, the enquiry
officer appreciated the evidence and
submitted his reasoned report running in
several pages holding the appellant guilty
of both the charges.

46. Once it is held that the
domestic enquiry is legal and proper, the
next question that arises for consideration
is as to whether the punishment imposed on
the appellant is just and legal or it is
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disproportionate to the gravity of the
charges.

50. In our opinion, both the
charges being serious in nature, therefore,
the order of dismissal passed against the
appellant cannot be faulted with and nor
can it be said to be, in any way,
disproportionate to the gravity of charges.
In other words, punishment of dismissal
was proportionate with the gravity of the
charges and hence deserves to be upheld."

(31) In any case, this Court cannot be
oblivious to the fact that it is not the normal
jurisdiction of the superior Courts to
interfere with the quantum of sentence,
unless it is wholly disproportionate to the
misconduct proved. This Court finds that
considering the nature of the allegations, its
proof and that the petitioner was in banking
service, the punishment of dismissal from
service is not disproportionate.

(32) Considering the aforesaid aspects
of the matter, the case law cited by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant/petitioner does not come to his
rescue and the reasoning given by the
learned Single Judge while dismissing the
writ petition is perfect from all respects and
no interference is required in the said
finding.

(33) Our view is fortified by the
judgment of the Division Bench dated
20.04.2015 passed in Writ-A No.65358 of
2013 and hence, we are fully in agreement
with
the
observations
made
in
the
impugned judgment and order.

(34) For all the reasons stated here-inabove, the Special Appeal filed by the
appellant/petitioner lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 344
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 843 of 2023

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Satya Prakash Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Ashutosh Shahi, Shireesh Kumar

Held:
Once the upgraded pay scale of Rs.3740067000 with Grade Pay Rs.8700/- for the post of
Superintending Engineer has been upheld by
Division Bench and affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ashok Kanojia Vs St. of U.P.
and Birendra Kumar Maurya Vs St. of U.P., there
remains no scope for the St. to re-agitate the
settled issue in further proceedings. Dismissal of
the review petition, even after liberty granted in
earlier Special Appeal, does not reopen the
issue. The Government Order dated 13.12.2011
having already been quashed in Writ Petition
No. 578 (SB) of 2012 remains unchallenged.
Thus, denial of upgraded pay scale to similarly
situated Executive Engineers including the
respondent was rightly interfered with by the
learned Single Judge.

Appeal dismissed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Ashok Kanojia Vs St. of U.P. & anr.

2. St. of U.P. Vs Birendra Kumar Maurya & anr.,
SLP(C) No. 17297/2014

3. Narottam Kumar Agarwal Vs St. of U.P., W.P.
No. 1063 (SB) of 2014