# Prithvi Raj Singh v. The Chief General Manager (H.R.), Union Bank of India, Central office, Mumbai

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1424
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-27
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 11589 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prithvi-raj-singh-v-the-chief-general-manager-h-r-union-bank-of-india-central-53483
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 226 - Disciplinary
proceeding - Scope of interference - How
far High Court sit in appeal over finding of
disciplinary authority - Held, the Court
can interfere if the opinion given on the
material is perverse, based on irrelevant
evidence or ignoring material evidence.
5 All. Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. The Chief General Manager (H.R.), Union Bank of India, Central
 office, Mumbai
1425
We can also interfere if there is a violation
of the principles of natural justice, leading
to prejudice to the petitioner. It is also
open to this Court to see if the procedure,
that was adopted, was fair, just and
reasonable,
and
particularly,
one
conforming to the fundamentals of the
standard procedural requirements to hold
a disciplinary inquiry. (Para 21)
B. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Burden of proof, on whom lie - Held,
burden to prove the charge(s) brought
against
the
employee
is
on
the
Establishment or the Management, as the
Bank choose to call themselves here. If
the
employee
fails
to
produce
any
evidence in his defence, that would not
lead to proof of the charge, the burden
whereof rests on the shoulders of the
Establishment. (Para 22)
C. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Compulsory retirement -
Charge of misconduct was leveled - No
witness cited as Ist and IInd witness were
called in preliminary enquiry - Effect -
Officers of the Bank, who had done the
preliminary inquiry, and were not present
on the spot, were produced - Relevancy -
Held, reliance placed on the evidence of
these two witnesses to find an affirmation
of facts constituting the charge is, truly
speaking, reliance placed on irrelevant
evidence or material, which should not
have
been
considered
during
the
departmental inquiry - The said evidence
is certainly not relevant to prove the
charge against the petitioner - Upon this
kind of irrelevant material, the Inquiry
Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the
Reviewing Authority could never have
found the petitioner guilty. (Para 25, 28
and 31)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,889 of 50,374. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39889 for what follows._

1424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (3) कममचारी द्वारा या उसकी ओर से गकसी
अन्य व्यगि द्वारा आय के ज्ञात सािनों से असंित िन संिंिी
संसािन या सम्पगि या स्िागमत्ि रिना, गिसका कममचारी
सन्तोषप्रद रूप से लेिा-िोिा न दे सकता हो।"

 7. The charge-sheet issued in the
present case has been referred to under
Rule-18 (1) and (2) which for ready
reference is also extracted hereunder :-

 "18-(1) कोई भी कममचारी गिना अपने सक्षम
प्रागिकारी की पूिम िानकारी के पट्टे, गिरिी, क्रय, गिक्रय,
उपहार के रूप में गकसी भी अचल सम्पगि का न तो अपने
नाम से और न अपने पररिार के गकसी सदस्य के नाम से
अगिग्रहण या गनस्तारण नहीं करेिा।

(2) गिना अपने सक्षम अगिकारी की पूिम
अनुमगत के, कोई भी कममचारी गकसी ऐसे व्यगि या प्रगतष्ठान
के कममचारी या उसके मातहत से गिसके साथ उसका पदीय
कायों से सम्िन्ि हो, गकसी अचल या चल सम्पगि सम्िन्िी
लेन-देन नहीं करेिा।"

8. Definite allegations in the chargesheet have been levelled pointing out the
properties which have been acquired by the
appellant
without
any
intimation
or
permission by the competent authority. The
immovable properties possessed by an
employee working in the Corporation
disproportionate to the known source of
income certainly amounts to a misconduct in
view of the definition clause provided under
Rule-5 sub rule 3 extracted above.

9. In the case at hand, the allegations
made in the charge-sheet regarding acquisition
of the property have not been denied
altogether on the basis of any tangible proof
showing that no such title whatsoever has been
acquired by the appellant in the properties
mentioned in the charge-sheet.

10. In any case once the allegations
have been levelled against the petitioner of
acquiring
immovable
property
disproportionate to his known source of
income, there is no reason as to why such a
proceeding may not be allowed to continue
and brought to its logical conclusion at the
earliest.

11. On a careful consideration of
the judgment/order under appeal, we are of
the considered opinion that the judgment
passed by writ court does not suffer from
any illegality calling for an interference in
exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this
court on the grounds urged before us.

12. The intra-court appeal bereft of
any merit is accordingly rejected.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1424
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ - A No. 11589 of 2023

Prithvi Raj Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The Chief General Manager (H.R.), Union
Bank of India, Central office, Mumbai
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr. Vivek Ratan Agarwal

A.
Service
Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 226 - Disciplinary
proceeding - Scope of interference - How
far High Court sit in appeal over finding of
disciplinary authority - Held, the Court
can interfere if the opinion given on the
material is perverse, based on irrelevant
evidence or ignoring material evidence.
5 All. Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. The Chief General Manager (H.R.), Union Bank of India, Central
 office, Mumbai
1425
We can also interfere if there is a violation
of the principles of natural justice, leading
to prejudice to the petitioner. It is also
open to this Court to see if the procedure,
that was adopted, was fair, just and
reasonable,
and
particularly,
one
conforming to the fundamentals of the
standard procedural requirements to hold
a disciplinary inquiry. (Para 21)
B. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Burden of proof, on whom lie - Held,
burden to prove the charge(s) brought
against
the
employee
is
on
the
Establishment or the Management, as the
Bank choose to call themselves here. If
the
employee
fails
to
produce
any
evidence in his defence, that would not
lead to proof of the charge, the burden
whereof rests on the shoulders of the
Establishment. (Para 22)
C. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Compulsory retirement -
Charge of misconduct was leveled - No
witness cited as Ist and IInd witness were
called in preliminary enquiry - Effect -
Officers of the Bank, who had done the
preliminary inquiry, and were not present
on the spot, were produced - Relevancy -
Held, reliance placed on the evidence of
these two witnesses to find an affirmation
of facts constituting the charge is, truly
speaking, reliance placed on irrelevant
evidence or material, which should not
have
been
considered
during
the
departmental inquiry - The said evidence
is certainly not relevant to prove the
charge against the petitioner - Upon this
kind of irrelevant material, the Inquiry
Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the
Reviewing Authority could never have
found the petitioner guilty. (Para 25, 28
and 31)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. St. of Uttar Pradesh Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha;
(2010) 2 SCC 772
2. Ranveer Singh Vs U.O.I.; 2021 (5) ALJ 457 :
AIROnline 2021 All 2121
3. St. of U.P. Vs Aditya Prasad Srivastava &
anr.; 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB)(LB)
4. Praveen Kumar Vs U.O.I. & ors.
5. S.B.I.Vs Ram Bhaskar & anr.; (2011) 10 SCC
249
6. The St. of Raj. & ors. Vs Bhupendra Singh;
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908
7. U.O.I. Vs Braham Pal Singh; 2005 SCC
OnLine All 1815
8. St. of Uttarakhand & ors. Vs Smt. Sureshwati;
(2021) 3 SCC 108
9. Uttar Pradesh St. Transport Corporation Vs
Gajadhar Nath; (2022) 3 SCC 190
10. Yogendra Kumar Vs U.O.I. & ors.; 2018 (6)
ADJ 645 (DB)
11. C.E.O., Krishna District Cooperative Central
Bank Ltd. & anr. Vs K. Hanumantha Rao & anr.;
(2017) 2 SCC 528
12. Nirmala J. Jhala Vs St. of Guj. & anr.; (2013)
4 SCC 301
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This writ petition is directed against
the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the
Chief Manager, Union Bank of India,
Varanasi (the Disciplinary Authority), the
order of the Deputy General Manager
(ERD), Union Bank of India, Mumbai (the
Appellate Authority) dated 21.03.2023 and
the order of the General Manager (Human
Resource), Union Bank of India, Mumbai
(the
Reviewing
Authority)
dated
12.05.2023. By the first of these orders, the
petitioner has been held guilty of service
misconduct after disciplinary proceedings
and punished inter alia with compulsory
retirement, with superannuation benefits
and without disqualification from future
employment. By the second of these orders,
the petitioner's appeal from the order of the
Disciplinary Authority has been rejected,
1426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and by the last of these orders made by the
Reviewing
Authority,
the
petitioner's
review too has been rejected.

2.
The
petitioner
is
an
exserviceman, who served the Indian Navy.
On the 10th of June, 2019, he was
appointed to the clerical cadre of the Union
Bank of India1 as a Single Window
Operator-A. He was posted at the Chowki
Bardah Branch, Azamgarh. He remained
posted
there
until
26.04.2020.
Subsequently, he was promoted to the post
of Head Cashier-II-cum-Clerk at the Audha
Dularganj Branch, Azamgarh. He was then
transferred
to
the
Sikraur
Branch,
Azamgarh. The petitioner had hardly put in
two years of service with the Bank in the
clerical cadre, as he asserts, when he was
served with a show-cause notice on
21.03.2020, asking him to submit his reply
against the charge mentioned in the notice.
He showed cause by his reply dated
30.03.2020. The reply did not find favour
with the Bank and the Disciplinary
Authority, the Chief Manager, Human
Resource
Department,
Field
General
Manager's Office, Varanasi, who issued a
charge-sheet dated 05.11.2020, charging
the petitioner in the following terms :

 This has reference to explanation
dated 30.03.2020 submitted by Shri Prithvi
Raj Singh, Head Cashier II cum Clerk,
Sikrour Branch (Erstwhile Single Window
Operator-A
Chowki
Verdah
Branch).
Azamgarh Region in response to Show
Cause
memorandum
no.
RO:HRM:3557:2020
dated
21.03.2020
issued to him by RO Azamgarh. The
explanation submitted by Shri Prithvi Raj
Singh has since been perused vis-à-vis
allegations levelled against him in terms of
aforesaid show cause memorandum as also
the facts of the case and the same has not
been found convincing.

 The
fact
remains
that
on
16.03.2020, Shri Singh's wife Mrs. Pratima
Singh, came to Chowki Verdah branch for
getting disbursement of dairy loan account
(Account No. 712106050000009 Rajput
Cairy) sanctioned to her by our Bank. The
loan was disbursed at around 11.30 AM
and thereafter she left the branch. However,
she again came to the branch at around
01:00 PM, went straightaway near the
cashier's cabin, had certain discussions with
Shri Singh and after wandering here and
there in the staff area, she sat on the chair
near the cash safe room / strong room (A
very sensitive and prohibited area in the
branch), however no objection or concern
was raised by Shri Singh regarding her
unauthorized presence or movement. After
some time she moved towards Branch
Manager who was working on some files,
out of the BM's cabin, in a remote place in
the branch and was sitting there for quite a
long duration. After some time Shri Prithvi
Raj Singh also moved to the Branch
Manager and Shri Singh along with his
wife manhandled the BM. It is reported that
Shri Singh in connivance with his wife has
beaten the Branch Manager brutally, as a
result the BM was injured and his personal
belongings
like
mobile
phone
and
spectacles etc were broken. The BM's shirt
also got torn during the incident. Even after
the Customer's Intervention, when the fight
came to an end, Mrs. Pratima Singh was
trying again and again to hit the BM by
using her sandal and the customers were
preventive/ stopping her but Shri Singh did
not try to stop her from doing so.

 It seems that the incident of
manhandling the BM that took place on
16.03.2020 in the branch was pre-planned
5 All. Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. The Chief General Manager (H.R.), Union Bank of India, Central
 office, Mumbai
1427
and instead of acting in a manner befitting
of a responsible bank employee and
preventing
further
escalation
of
the
situation Shri Singh joined his wife in
physically assaulting Shri Niraj Raja
Kumar (DM). No staff/customers of the
branch had ever complained regarding
misbehavior on the part of Shri Niraj Raja
Kumar (BM) as alleged by Shri Prithvi Raj
Singh. It is also surprising that, Mrs.
Pratima Singh did not lodged a complaint
to
the
appropriate
authorities/offices
against
the
BM
regarding
any
unusual/illegal demand made by BM prior
to date of the incidence. Also his act of
physically assaulting the BM in the branch
premises during business hours in presence
of other staff members and customers
jeopardized their safety and tarnished the
image of the Bank and in no way be termed
as an act of self defence. Further his
conduct and behaviour on 16.03.2020
during the aforementioned incident do not
coincide with the qualities expected from a
responsible bank employee.

 Shri Prithvi Raj Singh is required
to note that his aforesaid acts of omission
and commission enumerated in aforesaid
show-cause
memorandum
no.RO:HRM:3557:2020 dated 21.03.2020
issued
to
him
by
Regional
Office,
Azamgarh
constitutes
the
following
misconducts and he is hereby charged for
the same.

 Gross Misconducts:

 1.
Disorderly
or
Indecent
behavior on the premises of the Bank.

 2. Gross negligence or negligence
likely to involve the Bank In serious loss.

 Minor Misconducts:
 1.
Neglect
of
work
and
negligence in performing duties.

 2. Breach of any rule of business
of the Bank or instruction for running of
any department.

 3. Committing nuisance on the
premises of the bank

 4.
Falling
to
show
proper
consideration, courtesy or attention towards
officers.

3. The charges were sought to be
proved by the following documents and
witnesses supplied to the petitioner along
with a list of witnesses :

Sl.
No.
Particular of
documents

No. of
page

1
Letter of Sri Niraj Raja,
Branch Manager, Chowki
Bardah
Branch
dated
16/03/2020
01
2
Letter of Sri Virendra
Prasad,
DBM,
Chowki
Bardah dated 16/03/2020

01
3
Inspection
report
dated
18/03/2020 submitted by
Sri Arun Kumar Gupta
and Sri Dinkar Mishra

02
4
New
paper
cutting

02
5
Letter
of
Incharge,
Bardaha
Police
Station

01
6
CCTV Footage (in Pen
drive)

01
 List of Witness :
1428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 1. Branch Manager, Chowki
Bardah branch
 2. Dy. Branch Manager, Chowki
Bardah branch

 3. Sri Arun Gupta, Sr. Manager,
RO, Azamgarh.

 4. Sri Dinkar Mishra, Assst.
Manager (Security), RO, Azamgarh.

 The list of witnesses carried a
note that the Management reserved their
right
to
add
or
delete
any
document/witness(es).

4. The petitioner filed his written
statement of defence to the charge-sheet
dated 05.11.2020. He made an application
before the Inquiry Officer, Camp Office of
the Bank at Azamgarh, seeking certain
documents, which he regarded necessary
for his proper defence in the proceedings.
The petitioner's request was denied by the
Management representative, saying that the
documents were either not related to the
charge-sheet or privileged.

5. It appears that disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner were
initiated by the Bank on the basis of a
preliminary inquiry done by two officers -
one, Arun Kumar Gupta, then a Senior
Manager at the Regional Office of the
Bank, and another, Dinkar Mishra, then a
Manager (Security) at the Regional Office
of the Bank at Azamgarh. These two
Managers of the Bank, conducting the
preliminary inquiry into the incident, that
had happened on 16.07.2020 at Chowki
Bardah Branch of the Bank, giving rise to
the charge, had submitted an investigation
report of the preliminary inquiry dated
18.03.2020, that was relied upon by the
Management at the disciplinary inquiry as a
document marked MEX-3. The only
witnesses, by whose testimony, the charge
against the petitioner, that was about
assaulting the Branch Manager, a superior
of his, where, he was a Cashier, was sought
to be established, were these two managers,
who conducted the preliminary inquiry and
submitted the investigation report dated
18.03.2020. Admittedly, they were not
witnesses of the incident of altercation
between the petitioner and the Branch
Manager and also the petitioner's wife, that
had happened on 16.03.2020 at the Branch.

6. In the list of documents and
witnesses in support of the charge, the first
two witnesses were the Branch Manager,
the man said to be assaulted by the
petitioner and his wife as well as the
Deputy Branch Manager, both of whom
were eye-witnesses. Since the incident is
said to have happened during banking
hours, there were a number of customers
also present, who had intervened, but their
names do not figure in the Management's
list of witnesses, or so to speak, the
witnesses
whom
the
Management
examined in support of the charge. The
Inquiry Officer held the charge proved by
the testimony of the two witnesses and
watching the Closed Circuit Television2
Camera recordings of the day, that were
secured during the preliminary inquiry
carried out by the two management
witnesses,
who
had
submitted
the
preliminary investigation report.

7. The Inquiry Officer submitted
his
report
dated
17.09.2021
to
the
Disciplinary Authority, holding the charge
against
the
petitioner
proved.
Upon
considering the report of the Inquiry
Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed
an order dated 02.11.2021, prima facie
accepting it, proposing a punishment and
5 All. Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. The Chief General Manager (H.R.), Union Bank of India, Central
 office, Mumbai
1429
giving further opportunity to the petitioner
for a personal hearing. He fixed 12.11.2021
as the date for hearing the petitioner.

8. At this stage, the petitioner
moved the Regional Labour Commissioner,
Kanpur Nagar,
seeking
to
raise
an
industrial dispute against the proposed
punishment.
The
Labour
Court
Commissioner took note of the matter and
called for the Bank's response, but it
appears that ultimately, he permitted the
disciplinary proceedings to go on and reach
their logical conclusion. The petitioner was
granted personal hearing on 05.09.2022 by
the Disciplinary Authority, whereafter the
said authority sought permission of the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)
to pass final orders in the disciplinary
proceedings. The Labour Commissioner
having
granted
permission
to
the
Disciplinary Authority to pass final orders,
he passed the first of the orders impugned
dated 22.11.2022, punishing the petitioner
with compulsory retirement from service of
the Bank with superannuation benefits and
no
disqualification
from
further
employment on double count. For the
minor misconducts, alleged on the four
counts, the petitioner was censured.

9. The petitioner carried an appeal
against the said order to the Appellate
Authority, the Deputy General Manager of
the Bank at Mumbai. The Appellate
Authority, by the second order impugned
dated 21.03.2023, rejected the petitioner's
appeal and affirmed the order of the
Disciplinary Authority.

10. At this stage, the petitioner
challenged both these orders before the
Court by means of Writ - A No. 6611 of
2023. The learned Counsel for the Bank,
raised a preliminary objection that there
was a further remedy of review available in
terms of the bipartite settlement in the
Bank's Establishment. This Court declined
to entertain the writ petition on ground of
availability of a statutory alternative
remedy to the petitioner. The petition was
disposed of, requiring the petitioner to
prefer a review against the appellate order
dated 21.03.2023 within a period of two
weeks from the date of that order. The writ
petition last mentioned was decided as
aforesaid vide order dated 02.05.2023. The
petitioner then preferred a review under
Clause
45(i)
of
the
11th
Bipartite
Settlement
dated
11.11.2022
to
the
Managing Director and the Chief Executive
Officer
of
the
Bank/the
Reviewing
Authority on 12.05.2023. By the last of the
orders impugned, the review or the review
petition dated 12.05.2023, as the Bank have
chosen to call it, was rejected by the
General Manager, Human Resource, acting
as the Reviewing Authority.

11. Aggrieved by the orders
impugned, this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution has been instituted.

12. A notice of motion was issued
on 20.07.2023, and, in course of time,
parties exchanged affidavits. The petition
was admitted to hearing on 28.03.2023 and
on 06.12.2024, judgment was reserved.

13. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioner in support of this petition and
Mr. Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to
4.

14. Very elaborate and persuasive
submissions have been advanced by the
learned Counsel appearing for both parties,
buttressing their contentions with authority.
1430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,
learned Counsel for the petitioner has
emphasized that Neeraj Raja Kumar, the
Branch Manager, who was involved in the
incident, leading to the altercation, though
cited as first witness by the Management,
was never examined before the Inquiry
Officer. The Deputy Branch Manager was
also not examined. Mr. Srivastava argued
that it was these two witnesses who were
eye-witnesses
and
in
fact,
relevant
witnesses of fact, who could prove the
charges, but were never examined. The two
witnesses, who were examined, were
officers of the Bank, who never witnessed
the incident. They held preliminary inquiry
and submitted a preliminary investigation
report. They heard it all from the mouth of
others and viewed the CCTV Camera
recordings, which they enclosed with the
preliminary investigation report. It is also
argued
by
Mr.
Srivastava
that
the
preliminary inquiry report was produced as
documentary evidence in the inquiry, when
it is no kind of document to prove the
charge against the petitioner. It is only an
opinion and some material that was given
to the Bank by the two bank officials for
the purpose of enabling the Bank to reach a
decision if there was some worth to the
charge, where disciplinary proceedings
were warranted.

16. It is also emphasized by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner that in
the investigation report based on the
preliminary inquiry, action had been
suggested against the petitioner and the
Branch Manager both, but no proceedings
were taken against the Branch Manager.
Learned Counsel says that this shows
unfairness and bias on the respondents' part
in proceeding against the petitioner alone,
where their own officers opined that both
the Branch Manager and the petitioner
were liable to be proceeded with against.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the authority of the
Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Saroj Kumar Sinha3 and this Court in
Ranveer Singh v. Union of India4 as also
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aditya Prasad
Srivastava and another5.

17. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek
Ratan Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing
for the respondents has emphasized that the
testimony of the management witnesses
was recorded in the petitioner's presence
and he was given opportunity to crossexamine. The two witnesses proved the
charges against the petitioner. He was
further given opportunity of a personal
hearing before the Disciplinary Authority,
where he had his say. His appeal and
review too were fully considered and
decided by reasoned orders. There is no
procedural error that the petitioner can
point
out,
vitiating
the
disciplinary
proceedings. The petitioner cannot also
complain of denial of opportunity. It is
submitted that the petitioner does not aver
that the evidence cited against him, to wit,
the documents and the CCTV footage
relied upon by the Inquiry Officer were not
relevant. There is also no challenge to the
genuineness of the documents or the CCTV
footage, upon which, the findings of the
Authorities are based.

18. It is argued by Mr. Vivek Ratan
Agrawal that it is settled law that if the
inquiry is procedurally fair and not vitiated
by consideration of irrelevant evidence or
non-consideration of material evidence or
perverse findings, this Court cannot sit in
judgment
over
the
decision
of
the
respondents
in
their
disciplinary
jurisdiction as an Appellate Court. He has
referred to the authorities of the Supreme
5 All. Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. The Chief General Manager (H.R.), Union Bank of India, Central
 office, Mumbai
1431
Court in Praveen Kumar v. Union of
India and others, State Bank of India v.
Ram Bhaskar and another6 and The
State of Rajasthan and others v.
Bhupendra Singh7. In addition, the
learned Counsel for the respondents has
placed reliance upon a Bench decision of
our Court in Union Bank of India v.
Braham Pal Singh8. It is also argued that
what the petitioner wants to canvass
essentially is a dispute on facts and the
validity of the quantum of punishment, for
which, the ideal and appropriate remedy to
invoke is the jurisdiction of the Labour
Court or the Industrial Tribunal, where, the
respondents, if required, can also lead
evidence. In this connection, reliance has
been placed upon State of Uttarakhand
and others v. Smt. Sureshwati9 and
Uttar
Pradesh
State
Transport
Corporation v. Gajadhar Nath10.

19. Learned Counsel for the Bank
has particularly argued that the charges
against the petitioner involve disorderly
conduct and indecent behaviour on the
Bank premises in the presence of their
customers. The petitioner's total lack of
discipline, unruly and riotous conduct and
misbehaviour in physically assaulting and
manhandling his senior and a superior
officer constitutes gross misconduct. The
Bank's reputation and image have been
severely tarnished. He submits that the
banking industry is extreme sensitive in
nature and the banks have to ensure that
their operations are done in the best interest
of the public, where employees have to
maintain good conduct and discipline. They
have to show courtesy at the Branch. No
organisation, more particularly, a bank can
function properly and effectively if its
employees do not observe the norms of
discipline and good conduct.

20. In the last, it is submitted that
the adequacy or sufficiency of punishment
is for the employers to judge, and not this
Court. He submits that this Court cannot sit
in appeal over the discretion regarding the
quantum of punishment. The limited scope
of judicial review in matters of quantum is
confined to cases where the punishment
imposed is found to be shockingly
disproportionate to judicial conscience,
which is not the case here at all. In regard
to the last limb of his submissions, Mr.
Agrawal has called in aid the Bench
decisions of this Court in Yogendra
Kumar v. Union of India and others11
and the Supreme Court's guidance in Chief
Executive
Officer,
Krishna
District
Cooperative Central Bank Limited and
another v. K. Hanumantha Rao and
another12.

21. We have carefully considered
the submissions advanced by learned
Counsel for both parties and perused the
record. It is true that this Court cannot sit in
appeal over the findings of the Disciplinary
Authority, and here, there is a Reviewing
Authority also. We cannot arrogate to
ourselves the powers of appreciating
evidence in order to find out whether on
the material on record, the opinion formed
by the primary decision makers was
correct. We can interfere if the opinion
given on the material is perverse, based on
irrelevant evidence or ignoring material
evidence. We can also interfere if there is
a violation of the principles of natural
justice, leading to prejudice to the
petitioner. It is also open to this Court to
see if the procedure, that was adopted, was
fair, just and reasonable, and particularly,
one conforming to the fundamentals of the
standard procedural requirements to hold a
disciplinary inquiry.
1432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
22. For a first, it has to be
remembered that in any disciplinary
proceedings, the burden to prove the
charge(s) brought against the employee is
on the Establishment or the Management,
as the Bank choose to call themselves here.
If the employee fails to produce any
evidence in his defence, that would not lead
to proof of the charge, the burden whereof
rests on the shoulders of the Establishment.
It is quite another matter that once the
Establishment
have
discharged
their
burden, it is for the employee to produce
evidence in his defence, so that the Inquiry
Officer can ultimately assess if the charge
is proved or not, by the standard of
preponderance of probability. That is the
standard by which the charge(s) in a
departmental proceedings have to be
proved by the Establishment. It is a salutary
principle well settled in the law governing
disciplinary proceedings that in the holding
of a departmental inquiry, which may lead
to the imposition of a major penalty, if the
charge(s) subject matter of inquiry are to be
proved,
it
is
imperative
that
the
Establishment should not only produce
documentary evidence in support of the
charge(s), but also oral evidence or
witness(es),

23. There is one very odd feature in
this case, which requires consideration. The
entire charge against the petitioner is based
on a case of misbehaviour with the Branch
Manager done along with his wife during
banking hours, while the customers were
around.
The
petitioner's
defence,
in
substance, to the charge is that his wife had
applied for a loan to the Bank, which had
been sanctioned earlier in the day. She was,
later on, called in the afternoon hours by
the Branch Manager, and she came over to
the Bank, where the petitioner was
working. She looked for the Branch
Manager, who was not in his cabin. She
was directed to another place, in some
remote corner of the Bank, where the
Manager was sitting and doing his work.
The petitioner was in his own cabin or
desk, doing his duties. The Branch
Manager, according to the petitioner,
misbehaved with the petitioner's wife, who
protested and shouted at the Manager,
leading the petitioner to move to the site of
the incident. There, he alleges that the
Manager was assaulting his wife, and he
rushed to his wife's rescue, whom he says,
was molested by the Branch Manager. The
incident happened in the presence of the
staff, the petitioner, the Branch Manager
himself and the Deputy Branch Manager of
the Bank. Some customers too came
forward to dissipate the situation. The
charge, therefore, rests essentially on the
ocular testimony of those present, when the
altercation took place.

24. The law and fair procedure
would expect the charge to be proved by
the Establishment, producing as their
witness the Branch Manager, who was the
victim of the incident, according to the
respondents' case. In addition, the Deputy
Branch Manager, who had witnessed the
incident, would also be a very natural
witness. Apart from it, there could be other
members of the staff, and, may be,
customers, whom the Management could
produce to prove the charge, that is to say,
those men and women who had witnessed
the altercation. In the charge-sheet, the
Bank cited the Branch Manager and the
Deputy Branch Manager as their first and
second witnesses, but never called them
during inquiry. Instead, the officers of the
Bank, who had done the preliminary
inquiry, and were not present on the spot,
were produced not only to prove the
preliminary inquiry report, that was used as
5 All. Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. The Chief General Manager (H.R.), Union Bank of India, Central
 office, Mumbai
1433
a document in the evidence, but also to
testify to the facts that they found out
during the preliminary inquiry. Admittedly,
these two witnesses, Arun Kumar Gupta,
then the Senior Manager and Dinkar
Mishra, then the Manager (Security), MW1 and MW-2, respectively, who were
posted in the Regional Office of the Bank,
never witnessed the incident. No doubt,
they had held the preliminary inquiry and
submitted the preliminary investigation
report. The purpose of the preliminary
inquiry is always to ascertain whether a
case worth proceedings in the disciplinary
jurisdiction against an employee is made
out. While this kind of an inquiry is done,
no one has a right to participate or crossexamine witness(es) whose statements are
taken down during the preliminary inquiry.
It is an exercise done not to test the charge
against the petitioner, but to decide whether
a case worth proceeding is made out.
Therefore, a preliminary inquiry report,
even if put in evidence as a document and
got proved by those who conducted it, is
not relevant material, on the basis of which,
charge(s)
can
be
proved.
This
is
particularly so in a case like the present
one,
which
involves
allegations
of
misbehaviour and altercation in public
view.

25. Likewise, the testimony of the
two officers, who conducted the preliminary
inquiry, is quite irrelevant. They never
witnessed the incident. They only heard about
it from others and saw the CCTV Camera
recordings. Therefore, reliance placed on the
evidence of these two witnesses to find an
affirmation of facts constituting the charge is,
truly speaking, reliance placed on irrelevant
evidence or material, which should not have
been considered during the departmental
inquiry. An incident of this kind had to be
proved, may be, by the solitary testimony of
one witness who had seen it all. Even the
Branch Manager, who was, according to the
Bank, the victim of the incident, might have
been good enough to establish the charge, of
course, subject to the petitioner's right to
cross-examine him. If there were one or more
witness produced, as proposed in the chargesheet, say the Deputy Branch Manager of the
Bank or any other person, there would be
dependable material, and the inquiry, in that
case, fair, subject, of course, to the right of
the petitioner to cross-examine the said
witness(es), who had seen the incident of
altercation etc. happen. There is no earthly
reason why, after citing the Branch Manager
as a witness as also the Deputy Branch
Manager, not only these two men, but none
other who had actually witnessed the
incident, were produced on behalf of the
Bank, who bore burden of proving the charge
of misbehaviour against the petitioner with
his superior, insulting and assaulting him,
along with his wife. Rather, withholding
these witnesses and not producing any eyewitness, makes the inquiry against the
petitioner essentially unfair and suspect to its
face. Reliance placed on the CCTV footage,
produced
along
with
the
preliminary
investigation report, that was proved by the
two
management
witnesses
doing
the
preliminary
inquiry
may
be
relevant
evidence, but it could never fully prove the
charge. The dead eye of a camera often
reveals important things, but does not tell the
whole story. If there was no other evidence
and no one had seen the incident, the CCTV
footage might have been evidence good
enough to place reliance on, or, at least, to
shift the burden upon the petitioner to explain
the happenings in the CCTV footage. Here,
that is not the case.

26. There are eye-witnesses, in
good numbers, who saw the incident and
could explain whatever was seen in the
1434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
CCTV footage happened for what reason. It
is possible that when the petitioner's wife
beat up the Branch Manager inside the
premises with her sandal and the petitioner
rushed to her side, assaulting the Manager,
as remarked in the Reviewing Authority's
order, something offensive was said a
minute before by the Branch Manager to
the petitioner' wife. The CCTV Camera did
not capture any sound and had no
intelligence to answer what had happened
immediately before. The Inquiry Officer
has relied lavishly on the CCTV footage to
remark as follows :

 But in CCTV footage, it is observed
that facial expression of Shri Prithvi Raj Singh
was appearing very relaxed or normal while
his wife was involve in fighting or hold by the
Shri Niraj Raja Kumar. No hurry or anxiety
was appeared on his face. Despite all these
odds and even Shri Prithvi Raj Singh first
close the door of cash cabin then he watched
here and there in very relaxed way &
confirmed that no one watching him, thereafter
he entered inside the back space and
ubsequently fighting was started between them
(Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh, Ms. Pratima Singh and
Mr. Niraj Kumar Raja).

27. It is also remarked by the Inquiry
Officer in the inquiry report :

 In her Witten statement submitted to
investigation officer Ms. Pratima Singh also
informed that Shri Niraj Kumar Raja hold her
hand & demand some Javour/gift but in
CCTV footage same is not observed Same is
also evident from MEX.03 On scrutiny of
CCTV footage it is clearly evident that Ms.
Pratima Singh approach toward the Shri Dhrej
Raja Kumar.

28. The Inquiry Officer has all along
attempted to find the truth of the charge and
has, in fact, returned a finding of guilt against
the petitioner by looking into the CCTV
footage and statements recorded during the
preliminary inquiry by the two officers of the
Bank, who conducted it. The CCTV footage,
by itself, could not tell the complete story and
the statements recorded during the preliminary
inquiry were quite irrelevant for the purpose of
recording findings during the departmental
inquiry, even if these were proved by the two
officers penning the preliminary inquiry report
or the investigation report. The reason for the
latter conclusion is that the statements during
the preliminary inquiry are never meant to be
material used in the departmental inquiry, and
are never tested or verified by crossexamination by the other side. If a solitary
witness, who had seen the incident, as already
said, were produced, duly cross-examined, and
then the CCTV footage analysed to understand
the truth or otherwise of the testimony, the
burden on the Establishment could well be
discharged. Here, in this case, the entire
conclusions of the Inquiry Officer are based on
the information of the two witnesses gathered
during the preliminary inquiry, that is quite
irrelevant in the departmental inquiry, besides
the CCTV footage. The said evidence is
certainly not relevant to prove the charge
against the petitioner, given its nature and the
evidence about it being available.

29. The principle, that no reliance
can
be
placed
during
disciplinary
proceedings on the preliminary inquiry, fell
for consideration of the Supreme Court in
Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and
another13 The facts, in the background of
which the issue arose in Nirmala J. Jhala
(supra) find eloquent mention in the report
of their Lordships' decision, which can be
best recapitulated by quoting it verbatim :

 2. Facts and circumstances giving
rise to this appeal are : that the appellant
5 All. Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. The Chief General Manager (H.R.), Union Bank of India, Central
 office, Mumbai
1435
had joined the Gujarat State Judicial
Service in 1978, and was promoted
subsequently
as
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division) in 1992. She was posted as Chief
Judicial Magistrate (Rural) in Ahmedabad.
In December 1991, she was trying one
Gautam Ghanshyam Jani in CBI Case No.
5
of
1991
for
the
offence
of
misappropriation and embezzlement of
public money. The accused filed a
complaint with CBI on 19-8-1993, against
the
appellant
alleging
that
she had
demanded a sum of Rs 20,000 on 17-81993 as illegal gratification, to pass order
in his favour, through one C.B. Gajjar,
Advocate. As it was not possible for the
complainant to pay the said amount, the
appellant had agreed to accept the same in
instalments, and in order to facilitate the
said complainant's efforts to arrange the
said amount in part, she had even granted
adjournment.

 3. The said complaint filed with
CBI was referred to the High Court and in
pursuance thereof, a preliminary enquiry
was conducted against the appellant in
which statements of various persons
including C.B. Gajjar and G.G. Jani were
recorded. The Court then suspended the
appellant vide order dated 21-1-1994, and
directed a regular enquiry appointing Shri
M.C. Patel, Additional Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Ahmedabad as the enquiry
officer.

 4. A charge-sheet dated 6-8-1994,
containing 12 charges was served upon the
appellant. One of the main charges was, the
demand of illegal gratification to the tune
of Rs 20,000 from G.G. Jani through C.B.
Gajjar, Advocate in lieu of favouring the
complainant-accused.
Another
relevant
charge was that a person known as "Mama"
amongst the litigants, would come to her
residence, accompany her to court, and
collect money from litigants on her behalf
and thus, she had indulged in corrupt
practices.

 5. During the course of the
enquiry, G.G. Jani, C.B. Gajjar, P.K.
Pancholi and certain other witnesses were
examined by the department and in her
defence, the appellant examined herself
denying all the allegations made against
her. The enquiry officer submitted his
report on 24-10-1997, holding the appellant
guilty of the first charge and partially guilty
of the second charge i.e. to the extent that
one person named "Mama" used to visit her
quite frequently. However, it could not be
proved that he had ever misused his
association with the appellant in any
respect. All other charges were found
unsubstantiated.

 6. In pursuance of the report
submitted by the enquiry officer, the matter
was examined on the administrative side by
the High Court, and after meeting various
legal requirements i.e. issuing show-cause
notice to the appellant and considering her
reply, the Court vide resolution dated 1210-1998, made a recommendation to the
State that the appellant was guilty of the
first charge, and thus, punishment of
compulsory retirement be imposed on her.
The Government accepted the same and
issued a notification giving compulsory
retirement to the appellant on 11-12-1998.