# Pankjesh v. Chairman/Appellate Auth. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 966
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 13308 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pankjesh-v-chairman-appellate-auth-anr-50652
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Bank's Vigilance Manual
- Clause 1 - Dismissal from service -
Departmental enquiry - Chargesheet was
served upon the petitioner on 18.10.2018
just 12 days prior to the retirement -
Allegation of committing irregularity in
respect of loan transactions happened
between 2005 to 2010 - Delay of eight
years
in
initiating
the
departmental
enquiry - From 2010 to 2018, regular
annual financial inspections of the Branch
were conducted, but the respondent-Bank
never took any step against the petitioner
on the basis of any alleged illegality -
Manual provide four years limitation to
8 All. Pankjesh Vs. Chairman/Appellate Auth. & Anr.
967
initiate any enquiry - Non-compliance -
Effect - Held, there is a specific bar on
initiating proceedings after four years of
the incident. It is not open for the
respondent-Bank to manipulate the said
guidelines of C.V.C. which are binding
upon the Bank, merely by issuing a show
cause notice after a lapse of eight years.
(Para 5, 6, 16 , 18 and 21)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(Signature and designation of
Inquiring officer)

(For and on behalf of*)

CERTIFIED that the charge has read
over
and
explained
to.....................................(party charged) in
simple Hindi and a copy of the same was
handed over to.....................Received a
copy of charge.

(Signature and Designation of
inquiring officer)

Signature and party charged"

(Emphasis added)

10. Thus, from the above, it is
absolutely clear that even the earlier
chargesheet that was issued to the petitioner
and was signed by the inquiry officer
himself was not at all required to be
approved by the disciplinary authority.
However, since now a fresh chargesheet
has been issued with the same charges and
this time approved by the higher authority,
namely, disciplinary authority, I hold that
the earlier chargehseet stands superseded
by the subsequent chargehseet issued on
17th
June,
2023
and
accordingly
disciplinary inquiry will now be held
strictly as per the procedure prescribed for
under Appendix -1 to the Rules, 1991, into
the charges leveled under the chargehseet
dated 17th June, 2023.

11. It appears that the petitioner has
raised
certain
grounds
regarding
applicability of the U.P. Government
Service Rules, 1999 which provide that the
chargesheet should be approved by the
disciplinary authority.

12. In my considered view the Rules, 1991
are the special rules applicable to the police
department and so on the principle that
special law will override the general law,
the 1999 Rules will not be applicable in so
far as the disciplinary proceedings and in
respect of the police personnel are
concerned.

13. Petitioner is to submit his reply within
a period of four weeks from today and,
thereafter to cooperate in the disciplinary
proceedings.

14. With the above observations and
directions, both these petitions stand
disposed of.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 966
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-A No. 13308 of 2021

Pankjesh ...Petitioner
Versus
Chairman/Appellate Auth. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Roshni Shukla, Sri Prashant Vardhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satish Kishore Kakkar, Sri Amrish Sahai

A. Service Law - Bank's Vigilance Manual
- Clause 1 - Dismissal from service -
Departmental enquiry - Chargesheet was
served upon the petitioner on 18.10.2018
just 12 days prior to the retirement -
Allegation of committing irregularity in
respect of loan transactions happened
between 2005 to 2010 - Delay of eight
years
in
initiating
the
departmental
enquiry - From 2010 to 2018, regular
annual financial inspections of the Branch
were conducted, but the respondent-Bank
never took any step against the petitioner
on the basis of any alleged illegality -
Manual provide four years limitation to
8 All. Pankjesh Vs. Chairman/Appellate Auth. & Anr.
967
initiate any enquiry - Non-compliance -
Effect - Held, there is a specific bar on
initiating proceedings after four years of
the incident. It is not open for the
respondent-Bank to manipulate the said
guidelines of C.V.C. which are binding
upon the Bank, merely by issuing a show
cause notice after a lapse of eight years.
(Para 5, 6, 16 , 18 and 21)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Uco Bank & ors. Vs Rajendra Shankar Shukla;
(2018) 14 SCC 92
2. Uco Bank & ors. Vs Prabhakar Sadashiv
Karvade; (2018) 14 SCC 98
3. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs Rabindranath
Choubey; (2020) 18 SCC 71
4. St. of U.P. Vs Mohd. Sharif (dead); AIR 1982
Supreme Court 937
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Present writ petition is filed by the
petitioner challenging the order dated
07.09.2020 passed by the Disciplinary
Authority
whereby
petitioner
was
dismissed and the order dated 15.06.2021
passed by the appellate authority whereby
appeal of the petitioner against the
punishment order was also rejected.

2. Facts of the case are that the
petitioner was initially appointed as an
Officer in Tulsi Gramin Bank (erstwhile
Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank and now
Aryavart
Bank
since
01.04.2019)
(hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') in the
year 1983 and he was due to superannuate
on 31.10.2018. While in service of the
Bank, from 23.09.2010 till 10.01.2011, he
worked in the capacity of Temporary
Manager in Chakaundh Branch-Chitrakoot.
On 11.01.2011, petitioner was posted as
Permanent Manager in the same Branch till
he was transferred on 20.07.2012. During
his posting as Temporary Manager in the
said Branch, some loans were sanctioned
under a scheme sponsored by the National
Scheduled Castes Finance & Development
Corporation set up by the Government of
India under the Ministry of Social Justice &
Empowerment.

3. It is stated by the petitioner that as
per the process prescribed, all the loans
were recommended/approved by the Block
Development Officer concerned and were
also duly verified by the Bank and
thereafter sanctioned. The beneficiaries of
the said loans also purchased and received
articles subjected to loans and recorded
their satisfaction. The disbursement of
loans was made as per the procedure
prescribed by the Bank. The said loans
were evaluated, sanctioned and disbursed
and
assets
were
created
under
the
supervision of the Assistant Development
Officer
(Social
Welfare),
Pahari,
Chitrakoot along with Sri Atmaram Gupta,
who was the permanent officer posted in
the Branch. The disbursement of loans was
made as per the procedure and the said fact
was duly reported by the petitioner to the
competent authority by communications
dated
17.02.2010,
30.03.2010
and
20.04.2010. The internal audit inspection of
the Branch was also carried out by the
Inspection Officer from 09.06.2010 to
14.06.2010. In the audit inspection report
dated 15.06.2010, it was pointed out that
disputed loans were sanctioned without
approval of the Manager.

4. At the relevant time there were
only two Officers posted in the said Branch
namely Sri Atmaram Gupta as Evaluation
Officer and the petitioner as the Temporary
Manager (having no authorization to
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sanction the loan as per the Bank
guidelines).

5.

Right
after
the
aforesaid
irregularities were pointed out in the
inspection report dated 15.06.2010, Sri
Atmaram Gupta was transferred to another
Branch by order dated 19.07.2010, with
clear instruction not to deal with any loan
transactions. The irregularities pointed out
in the inspection report were not rectified
as per the Bank. Thereafter 08 further
financial annual internal inspections were
conducted by the Bank till 2018 and no
irregularities were pointed out in the said
inspections. Surprisingly, after 08 years of
the aforesaid incident, which had occurred
in the year 2010, petitioner was served with
a show cause notice on 23.08.2018 with
regard to irregularities in the said loan
transactions. After issuance of the show
cause notice again a special inspection was
carried out with regard to 14 loans
transactions mentioned in the show cause
notice dated 23.08.2018. The said special
inspection was conducted on 27.09.2018.

6. A charge sheet was issued by the
respondent-Bank to the petitioner on
11.10.2018
which
was
served
on
18.10.2018, i.e., just 12 days prior to the
retirement of the petitioner, containing total
18 charges levelled against the petitioner.
Out of the 18 charges, Charge nos. 1 to 14
are with regard to wrong information
provided
by
the
petitioner
in
his
explanation
letter
dated
10.09.2018,
allegedly written by him, with regard to
loans sanctioned during his tenure at the
Chakaundh branch in the year 2010.
Charge No. 15 is with regard to dereliction
of duty while sanctioning a loan which later
turned N.P.A. and caused financial loss of
Rs. 43,924 to the respondent bank and
Charge No. 16 is regarding misleading
reports submitted by the petitioner to the
Head Office and relate to different loans of
the year 2010 having only variation of
names of borrowers and the loan amounts
etc. Charge No. 17 again refers to wrong
information provided by the petitioner with
regard to signature of the officer, who
issued
banker's
cheque
drafted
on
25.03.2010 and 29.03.2010, in his letter
dated 10.09.2018. So far as the Charge
no.18 is concerned, it alleged that the
petitioner failed to follow the Bank
guidelines
during his
tenure
at
the
Chaukandh Branch, as an amount of
Rs.1,07,302/- was incorrectly shown in
Saving Bank Account of Sri Gulab Singh
as Rs.2,07,302/- on 06.12.2005 and, thus,
an excess amount of Rs.91,439/- was
withdrawn by the account holder, causing
financial loss of the said amount to the
Bank. All of the 18 charges pertain to
transactions that happened between 2005 to
2010 i.e., 8 years before the chargesheet
was issued to the petitioner.

7. First submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner challenging the
punishment order is that the incident is of
the year 2010 and it was also always in the
knowledge of the respondent-Bank. In fact,
Sri Atmaram Gupta was transferred from
the Bank by order dated 19.07.2010 with
the instructions that he shall not be given
any loan sanctioning authority. However,
the charge sheet to the petitioner was issued
on 11.10.2018 i.e. around 08 years after the
incident took place and that too merely 12
days prior to retirement of the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner relies upon
Clause 1 of the Chapter-VII of the Bank
Vigilance Manual wherein it is provided
that no disciplinary action shall be taken
against an official 4 years after the
commission of the alleged act. Thus, the
charge sheet is highly belated and,
8 All. Pankjesh Vs. Chairman/Appellate Auth. & Anr.
969
therefore, the entire proceedings are liable
to be set aside. In support of his
submission, counsel for the petitioner relies
upon the judgments of Supreme Court in
the cases of Uco Bank & Ors. vs.
Rajendra Shankar Shukla; (2018) 14
SCC 92 and Uco Bank & Ors. vs.
Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade (2018) 14
SCC 98, wherein departmental proceedings
against the employee were set aside by the
Supreme Court on the ground of there
being inordinate delay between the alleged
act and issuance of chargesheet.

8. In reply to the same, learned
counsel for the respondent-Bank submits
that a perusal of each and every charge
shows that the charge sheet is issued on the
basis of a reply submitted by the petitioner
10.09.2018. He further submits that the
aforesaid judgments relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioner stands overruled
by a larger bench of the Supreme Court in
the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v.
Rabindranath Choubey; (2020) 18 SCC
71.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further disputes that petitioner never issued
any explanation letter dated 10.09.2018 and
also denied petitioner's signature on the
same. He further submits that the charges
in the charge sheet are vague and do not
give any details whatsoever. Reliance is
placed upon the language of the charges
which merely state that the petitioner while
working as Manager of the Branch -
Chakaundh had given loans with regard to
named persons and in the said references
has made false and misleading report to the
Head Office. He further adds that vague
charges in the chargesheet are in itself a
sufficient ground to set aside the whole
proceeding. In support of his argument,
learned counsel for the petitioner relies
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Sharif
(dead)
through
L.
Rs;
AIR
1982
Supreme Court 937.

10. Replying to the same, learned
counsel for respondent submits that along
with the charge sheet documents were
annexed giving details in support of the
charges levelled against the petitioner. In
the said annexure with regard to charge
nos. 1 to 14, it is specifically stated that in
response to the Head Office letter dated
23.08.2018, a reply was submitted by the
petitioner on 10.09.2018 which was vague
and false. The said annexures also gave
details of the different loan accounts and
the amount sanctioned in the same. Thus,
the same are sufficient details and it cannot
be said that the charges are vague. With
regard to charge no.15, it is stated that after
the purchase of Buffalo neither any health
certificate was issued nor the buffalo was
insured. Further, no security on the loan
amount of Rs.40,000/- was ever furnished
and now the loan amount cannot be
recovered and thus the Bank has suffered a
loss of Rs.43,924/- against the amount as it
stood on the date of the charge sheet.

11. With regard to Charge no.16,
details of the aforesaid loan amounts are
provided and it is stated that the petitioner
did not ask for any security for the loan
disbursed by him and, thus, later the same
turned as N.P.A. and are now causing loss
to the Bank. With regard to Charge No.17,
annexures
again
state
that
his
explanation dated 10.09.2018 to the
Bank's letter dated 23.08.2018 gives
incorrect and false information and thus
charge is made out. For Charge no.18, it
gives details of amount incorrectly
shown in the said saving Bank account
of Sri Gulab Singh.
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. On the basis of the aforesaid,
learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
states that sufficient details are given in the
charge sheet and the same is not delayed
and the same is on the basis of
communication dated 10.09.2018 given by
the petitioner which itself is vague and
false. Thus, he says that since the cause of
action occurred in the year 2018, when
incorrect reply was submitted by the
petitioner, hence there is no delay in
issuing the charge sheet. Learned counsel
for the respondent-Bank further states that
the letter dated 10.09.2018 is written by the
petitioner himself and he is wrongly
disputing the same.

13. A perusal of the inquiry report
shows that Charge Nos. 1 to 14 are proved,
charge No.15 is partly proved whereas
petitioner is exonerated from charge No.16,
charge No.17 is proved and Charge No. 18
is partly proved.

14. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the records.

15. The first submissions of the
petitioner is with regard to the delay in
initiating
the
disciplinary
proceedings
against him.

16. It is not in dispute between the
parties that all the loans were sanctioned in
and other acts referred to in the charge
sheet are of the year 2010 or prior in time.
The charge sheet is issued to the petitioner
on 11.10.2018, which was served upon him
on 18.10.2018, while petitioner was due to
retire on 31.10.2018. It has not been
disputed by the respondent-Bank that from
the year 2010 to the year 2018, regular
annual financial inspections of the Branch
were conducted. Thus, if there was any
irregularity and illegality committed by the
petitioner, it was always in the knowledge
of the respondent-Bank. The respondentBank never took any step against the
petitioner on the basis of any alleged
illegality, even if they existed. The Bank
cannot by calling explanation, by its letter
dated 23.08.2018, can get over the delay of
08 years committed by it in initiating the
departmental enquiry with regard to any
illegality committed by the petitioner, by
saying
that
in
response
thereto
a
response/letter
dated
10.09.2018
was
sent/submitted by the petitioner, which is
false and vague and thus now the
departmental
proceedings
are
being
initiated. All the charges relates to the loan
granted under the Government scheme for
the poor persons in the year 2010 and
discrepancy in debiting a customer's
account in the year 2005.

17. The explanation sought by
communication dated 23.08.2018 is only
with regard to the said loans of the year
2010 and discrepancy of the year 2005.
There is no proper explanation for the delay
of 08 years even in issuing a show cause
notice to the petitioner and the admission
that a show cause notice itself is issued
after 08 years shows that there is inordinate
delay.

18. Bank's Vigilance Manual has been
prepared with an objective to streamline
and standardize the process of disciplinary
proceedings.
Chapter-VII
deals
with
"Processing of Investigation Report &
Fixing Staff Accountability". Clause 1
thereof provides the time limit for initiation
of disciplinary proceedings, it reads as
follows:-

"As
per
prevailing
system,
all
borrowal/non-borrowal
accounts
are
subjected to credit audit/inspection and
8 All. Pankjesh Vs. Chairman/Appellate Auth. & Anr.
971
they are kept under close scrutiny. This
audit/inspection
would
scrutinise
presanction appraisal, documentation and
disbursement of loans/advances and post
sanction follow-up. If any irregularity is
missed out by auditors/inspectors in the
first audit/inspection, it is reasonable to
expect that the remaining undetected
irregularities will be detected in the 2nd
audit/inspection and necessary disciplinary
proceeding would be initiated against the
concerned officials in the follow up action.
Normally
the
second
audit/inspection
would be completed within 3-4 years. The
CVC
has
accordingly
approved
the
proposal that no disciplinary proceeding
will ordinarily lie against any official for
any
lapse
not
detected
within
two
successive
internal
regular
audits/inspections of the same account or 4
years from the date of event, whichever is
later. In case any irregularity is detected
subsequent to the second audit/inspection,
the auditors/inspectors concerned will be
held accountable and be liable for
disciplinary proceedings. However, this
time limit will not apply to cases of i)
frauds, ii) other criminal offences or iii)
cases where malafides are inferable."

19. Applicability of the Bank's
Vigilance Manual has not been disputed in
the counter filed by the respondent Bank.
During course of arguments, counsel for
the Bank agrees that the same is applicable,
however, he submits that the proceedings
are initiated on the basis of false
explanation dated 10.09.2018 submitted by
the petitioner.

20. A perusal of the aforesaid shows
that if any irregularity was found in the first
audit/inspection and even if it is missed, it
is reasonably expected that the same would
be detected in the second audit/inspection.
Thus, immediately after the second audit
inspection
necessary
disciplinary
proceedings are expected to be initiated
against the concerned official in the follow
up action. Such an exercise is normally
completed within a period of 3-4 years. The
C.V.C. accordingly approved that no
disciplinary proceeding will ordinarily lie
against any official for any lapse not
detected within two successive internal
regular audits/inspections of the same
account or 4 years from the date of event,
whichever is later. In case irregularities are
detected
subsequent
to
second
audit/inspection,
the
auditors/inspectors
concerned will be held accountable and
liable for disciplinary proceedings. Only
exception to the same are cases of fraud,
other criminal offences or where malafides
are inferable.

21. In the present case, it is not the
case of the respondent-Bank that the
irregularities were not detected in the audit
inspections. Once they were detected, it
was incumbent upon the Bank to forthwith
proceed with the departmental proceedings.
There is no case set up by the respondentBank that the present is a case of fraud or
other criminal offences or where malafides
are inferable. There is no case set up by the
Bank that irregularities did not come in the
knowledge of the Bank in time. There is a
specific bar on initiating proceedings after
four years of the incident. It is not open for
the respondent-Bank to manipulate the said
guidelines of C.V.C. which are binding
upon the Bank, merely by issuing a show
cause notice after a lapse of 08 years. Any
show cause notice was also required to be
issued by the Bank within the said period
prescribed under the C.V.C. guidelines.
Thus,
the
initiation
of
disciplinary
proceeding is directly hit by the aforesaid
guidelines.
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Mahanadi Coalfields (supra), that
delay in issuing chargesheet cannot be a
ground for quashing of the departmental
proceedings. Relevant paragraph of the
same reads as follows-

"38. In UCO Bank v. Rajendra
Shankar Shukla [UCO Bank v. Rajendra
Shankar Shukla, (2018) 14 SCC 92 : (2018)
2 SCC (L&S) 625] this Court did not
interfere on the ground that there was an
enormous delay of about seven years in
issuing a charge-sheet. Efficiency bar was
permitted to be crossed during that period,
and the employee was not paid the
subsistence allowance or pension during
the pendency of the disciplinary inquiry. It
was observed that the employee was
entitled to subsistence allowance during the
inquiry. The decision of UCO Bank v.
Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade [UCO Bank
v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade, (2018) 14
SCC 98 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 630] was
referred. An observation was made that
punishment of dismissal could not have
been imposed after superannuation, but the
same could not be said to be the ratio of the
decision. It was mainly for the reasons
mentioned by this Court concerning delay,
non-payment of subsistence allowance and
the employee was deprived of meaningful
participation
under
the
departmental
enquiry. After giving the aforesaid findings,
it was not necessary to go into the
aforesaid question. Thus, the opinion
expressed as to the punishment of dismissal
could not be said to be the ratio of the
decision. The reliance was placed on UCO
Bank v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade
[UCO
Bank
v.
Prabhakar
Sadashiv
Karvade, (2018) 14 SCC 98 : (2018) 2 SCC
(L&S) 630] . Though the decision of UCO
Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [UCO Bank
v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694
: (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 550] was referred to
by this Court, but it did not consider the
effect of deeming fiction of continuance of
inquiry and continuance of the employee in
the service as pointed out above in the
various decisions and it relied upon
Regulation 48 providing for pecuniary loss
caused to the bank. Whereas in Ramesh
Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank
[Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab
National Bank, (2007) 9 SCC 15 : (2008) 1
SCC (L&S) 337] it was held to the contrary
that once the inquiry is initiated under
Regulation 4 of the (Discipline & Appeal)
Regulations, Regulation 48 of the Pension
Regulations had no application, and order
of dismissal was upheld. The decision in
Ramesh Chandra Sharma
v.
Punjab
National Bank [Ramesh Chandra Sharma
v. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 9 SCC 15
: (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 337] and other
decisions which were binding upon the
Division Bench were not considered. In the
absence of consideration of the said decision
and other decisions mentioned above in
which it was held that legal fiction of deemed
continuation has to be taken to a logical
conclusion consequently, the observation
made that after superannuation punishment
of dismissal cannot be imposed in UCO Bank
v. Rajendra Shankar Shukla [UCO Bank v.
Rajendra Shankar Shukla, (2018) 14 SCC 92
: (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 625] , was not the
ratio of decision, and the opinion expressed
on the strength of the said decision in UCO
Bank v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade [UCO
Bank v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade, (2018)
14 SCC 98 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 630]
suffers from infirmity and cannot prevail."
(emphais supplied)

A perusal of the Judgment in the case
of Mahanadi Coalfields (supra) as relied
8 All. Pankjesh Vs. Chairman/Appellate Auth. & Anr.
973
upon by the counsel for the respondent has
only overruled Rajendra Shankar Shukla
(supra)
and
Prabhakar
Sadashiv
Karvade
(supra)
insofar
they
have
observed that punishment for removal
cannot be passed after superannuation of
the delinquent employee, otherwise the law
regarding unexplained inordinate delay in
initiating disciplinary proceedings still
holds good. The law settled by the Supreme
Court in this regard is that if in case there is
inordinate delay, it shall be no more open
for the respondent-department to proceed to
initiate
departmental
proceedings.
Respondent bank can not get over such an
inordinate delay on the basis of an
explanation letter, which the petitioner
disputes is written by him, regarding events
which happened atleast 8 years ago.

23. So far as reply letter dated
10.09.2018 is concerned, petitioner has
specifically denied the same. Both the
parties have submitted their hand writing
expert reports. Their experts have given
contradictory reports as the expert to the
Bank states that signature of petitioner do
match while that of the petitioner states that
the signature of petitioner do not match.
Thus, there was no conclusive evidence on
record to show that the alleged signature
claimed to be of the petitioner on
communication
dated
10.09.2018,
match/tally with his original signature. This
Court also by its order dated 07.10.2021
required the signature to be sent to forensic
expert for verifying from the State forensic
laboratory.

24. The finding regarding whether the
signature on the letter dated 10.09.2018 is
attributed to the petitioner is inconclusive and
thus there could be no question of reappreciation of the factual evidence available on
record therefore, this Court is within its powers
to get the same examined and give a finding on
the same. The expert forensic report dated
12.02.2021 submitted under the directions of
this Court also states that the signature of
petitioner do not tally/match with the signature
on the alleged document dated 10.09.2018. The
same in itself sufficiently proves that the letter
dated 10.09.2018 is not written by the
petitioner. Thus, any incorrect statement in the
said communication cannot be assigned to the
petitioner and the departmental proceedings on
the basis of the same cannot be initiated. Even
otherwise, this Court has also inspected the
specimen signature maintained by the Bank
filed along with annexure no.10 of the writ
petition (Page 81-B) and also Officers
Authorized Signature Book of the Bank
submitted by the Bank under seal cover with
the signature on the said communication dated
10.09.2018, at Page 83 of the writ petition. The
said communication dated 10.09.2018 runs into
two pages and the first page of the same does
not contain any signature. It is the second page
of the said communication which contains
alleged signature of the petitioner (at Page-83)
and when the same is compared with the
specimen signature maintained by the Bank and
filed at Page 81-B, the same on the face of it do
not tally at all. These are two different
signatures.

25. Thus, this Court finds that
communication dated 10.09.2018, on the basis
of which the charge sheet is issued cannot
stand. Thus, the Bank cannot even take any
benefit of the said communication dated
10.09.2018 against the petitioner.

26. In light of the aforesaid, this
petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated
07.09.2020 and order dated 15.06.2021 is
set aside.

27.

The
Officers
Authorized
Signature Book of the Bank is also
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted by the Bank under the sealed
cover of this Court. Let the original Book
be returned to learned counsel for the
respondent-Bank by the Registrar General
of this Court.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 974
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 16385 of 2008

Ramesh Chandra Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Bank of India & Ors...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vijay Tripathi, Sri A.P. Pandey, Sri Abhishek
Misra, Sri J.S.P. Singh, Sri O.P. Singh, Sri R.C.
Pandey (In person), Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra,
Sri Shashwat Anand, Sri Om Subhash Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.C. Tripathi, Sri Abhishek Tandon, S.C.

Service Law - Dismissal from Service -
Departmental Enquiry - Natural Justice -
Banking Services - Financial Probity

The petitioner, a former Assistant Manager and
officiating Branch Manager at Central Bank of
India, challenged his dismissal from service,
following a departmental enquiry on charges of
financial
irregularities,
including
misappropriation, unauthorized retention of
funds, and abuse of official position. The
Enquiry Officer partially upheld some charges
but found no mala fide intent or fraudulent
withdrawal. The Disciplinary Authority, differing
from the Enquiry Officer's findings, imposed
dismissal, which was upheld by the Appellate
Authority. The petitioner argued violation of
natural justice and disproportionate punishment,
citing prior court orders quashing earlier
dismissal
orders.
The
respondent-Bank
contended
that
the
petitioner's
actions
compromised financial probity, justifying the
penalty, and that the Disciplinary Authority
provided cogent reasons for differing with the
Enquiry Officer. The court found that the
Disciplinary Authority had recorded cogent
reasons for differing with the Enquiry Officer's
findings, analyzing the charges and evidence
afresh after remand, as per the court's earlier
orders.
The
petitioner's
actions,
including
unauthorized handling of funds and abuse of
position, constituted serious misconduct in
banking services, where financial probity is
paramount. The punishment of dismissal was
deemed just and proportionate.

The writ petition was dismissed.

References:

1. Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs U.O.I. (2015) 7
SCC 291

2. Ram Ratan Vs St. of U.P. (2019) 4 ADJ 870
(LB)

3. St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 1
Supreme 561

4. S.B.I. Vs Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC
212

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri O.P. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ramesh
Chandra Pandey, the petitioner in person,
who is a practising lawyer of this Court
since long, along with Shri Om Subhash
Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Abhishek Tandon, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent-Bank.

2. By order dated 26.09.2022, the
Apex Court made a request from this Court
to take up this writ petition at an early date
and conclude the proceedings as early as