# Rabindra Kumar v. Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager (O.A.D.) & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 489
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-01
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4080 of 2022
- **Bench:** Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rabindra-kumar-v-disciplinary-authority-assistant-general-manager-o-a-d-ors-51669
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Dismissal - Allegation of
impersonation - Earlier dismissal order
was set aside leaving it open to authority
to proceed afresh - Re-enquiry report was
based on a report of handwriting expert,
who was not registered as an expert - No
corroboration of expert report with other
material evidence could be made, though
opportunity to cross examine the expert
was given - No consideration was made
on the issue of missing of photo, in spite
of specific observation made by High
Court in its earlier order - Permissibility -
Held, the respondents have passed the
impugned orders solely depending on the
report submitted by one R. Krishna, who is
handwriting expert, without verifying the
other material and without establishing
that the petitioner has not appeared in the
examination - High Court set aside the
impugned order remanding the matter to
afresh enquiry. (Para 34, 35, 37, 38 and
39)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,771 of 61,617. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39771 for what follows._

3 All. Rabindra Kumar Vs. Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager (O.A.D.) & Ors. 489
not as in view of above discussion, it does
not require as well as in view of above
discussion, other argument of petitioners'
side has no legal basis as well as judgments
cited are distinguishable on facts as well as
on law.

26. The outcome of above discussion
is that relief sought could not be granted,
accordingly,
all
writ
petitions
are
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 489
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.02.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ A No. 4080 of 2022

Rabindra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General
Manager (O.A.D.) & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indra Raj Singh, Sri Adarsh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satish Chaturvedi, Sri Sumit Kakkar

A. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment - Dismissal - Allegation of
impersonation - Earlier dismissal order
was set aside leaving it open to authority
to proceed afresh - Re-enquiry report was
based on a report of handwriting expert,
who was not registered as an expert - No
corroboration of expert report with other
material evidence could be made, though
opportunity to cross examine the expert
was given - No consideration was made
on the issue of missing of photo, in spite
of specific observation made by High
Court in its earlier order - Permissibility -
Held, the respondents have passed the
impugned orders solely depending on the
report submitted by one R. Krishna, who is
handwriting expert, without verifying the
other material and without establishing
that the petitioner has not appeared in the
examination - High Court set aside the
impugned order remanding the matter to
afresh enquiry. (Para 34, 35, 37, 38 and
39)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Ran Vijay Singh Vs U.O.I.; 2018 (4) AWC
3581

2. Writ A No. 21096 of 2018; Vijay Pal & ors. Vs
U.O.I.& ors. decided on 16.05.2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sumit
Kakkar,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. The petitioner by the instant writ
petition seeks quashing of the impugned
order dated 29.11.2021 and 27.01.2022
passed by respondent no. 1 and 2
(Annexure Nos. 20 and 23).

3. The petitioner having graduate
degree is eligible for the post of clerical
staff. Pursuant to the notification, he has
submitted Online application form for
selection in State Bank of India. The
petitioner was issued an admit card bearing
Roll No.2201047741 with Registration
No.4136762 for appearing in the written
examination scheduled to be held on
15.11.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner had
appeared in the written examination on
15.11.2009 at Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir
Post
Graduate
College, Anand
Bag,
Kanpur.
The
said
examination
was
conduced
in
the
presence
of
two
invigilators including Bank invigilator. At
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the time of examination, the invigilators
have matched the physical presence of the
petitioner by verification of photographs,
signatures and thumb impressions and after
being
fully
satisfied,
permitted
the
petitioner to appear and participate in the
written
examination. Accordingly,
the
petitioner passed the aforesaid written
examination and was declared successful.
Thereafter, he was called for interview
which was scheduled to be held on
27.04.2010. The interview Board has
verified the required documents in the
presence of petitioner and after full
satisfaction of the Bank Officials, interview
has been conducted and final results were
declared on 16.12.2010 in which the
petitioner was declared as selected and the
petitioner joined the said post of Assistant
in
S.B.I.,
Industrial
Area
Branch
Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar on
16.12.2010. He discharged his duties with
utmost satisfaction of authorities and
basing on his performance, the authorities
have recommended for confirmation on the
post
vide
order
dated
21.03.2012.
Accordingly, his services were confirmed
vide order dated 24.03.2012.

4. Under the misconception of facts,
the third respondent had issued a charge
memo on 03.09.2015, which reads as under
:-

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

रवीधर कुम र, सह यक

DATE 03.09.2015

भ.दन. क्र. 6599540

LETTER NO. DPS/GKP/470

द्व र भ रतीय थटेट बैंक

आरोप-पत्र (Charge-sheet)

थट ि : एव ई

श ख : इांडदथियल एररय खलील ब ि

वषा 2009 में केधरीय भती एवां पिोधनदत दवभ ग
(Central
Recruitment
and
Promotion
Department), भ रतीय थटेट बैंक, क रपोरेट केंर मुांबई ने
दवदभधन सम च र पत्रों में भ रतीय थटेट बैंक में दलदपकों की भती के
दलए आवेिन आमांदत्रत करने हेतु दवज्ञ पन दिय थ ।

भ रतीय थटेट बैंक दलदपकों की भती हेतु आपके
आवेिन के आध र पर केधरीय भती एवां पिोधनदत दवभ ग ने आपको
कॉल लेटर भेि दिसमें सूचन िी गयी थी दक आप दलदखत परीक्ष
में सदम्मदलत होने हेतु ज्व ल िेवी दवद्य मदधिर पोथट ग्रेिुएट
क लेि, आनधि ब ग, क नपुर में दिन ांक 15.11.2009 (समय
9.15 AM) को उपदथथत हो ।

आप पर आरोप है दक आपने बैंक में दलदपक के रूप
में दनयुदि प ने के दलए ि नबूझकर धोख ध़िी/अनुदचत तरीक
अपन य । अतः दनम्नदलदखत आरोपों के दलए आपके दवरुद्ध
अनुश सन त्मक क याव ही शुरू करने क दनणाय दलय गय है।

आरोप सं. आपकी दनयुदि के सांबांध में, बैंक द्व र
दिन ांक 15.11.2009 (समय: 09.15AM) को ज्व ल िेवी
दवद्य मदधिर पोथट ग्रेिुएट कॉलेि, आनधि ब ग, क नपुर में
आयोदित दलदखत प्रवेश परीक्ष के ि र न Attendance
Sheet और Call Letter पर दकए गए हथत क्षर एवां अांगूठे के
दनश न तथ बैंक द्व र दिन ांक 27.04.2010 को सम्पधन कर ये
गए इांटरलव्यू और दिन ांक 15.12.2010 को आपकी बैंक में
दनयुदि के सांिभा में आपके द्व र दकए गए हथत क्षर एवां अांगूठे के
दनश न तथ दिन ांदकत 24.04.2010 के आपके द्व र दिये गए
आत्मकथ्य एवां सत्य पन ि मा के सांिभा में दकये गये हथत क्षर एवां
अगूठे के दनश न िो अलग अलग व्यदियों के द्व र दकए गए। अतः
आपने ऊपर वदणात दलदखत परीक्ष दिन ांक 15.11.2009 में
अपने थथ न पर दकसी अधय व्यदि (स ल्वर solver) को
धोख ध़िी से सदम्मदलत कर कर परीक्ष प स की।

आरोप सं.2. आपने धोख ध़िी एवां अनुदचत
प्रदक्रय क प्रयोग बैंक में Assistant के रूप में भती होने के
दलए दकय ।

2- आपके दवरुद्ध यदि उपरोि आरोप प्रम दणत होते
है तो यह भ रतीय बैंक सांि एवां कमाच री सांगठनों के मध्य दद्वपक्षीय
समझौत दिन ांक 10.04.2002 के 5(एन) और 5(ओ) के
अांतगात "िोर कि च र" म न ि एग एवां समझौत दिन ांक
10.04.2002 के पैर 6 के अांतगात िांडनीय है (The above
charges, if established, would amount to
"Gross Misconduct in terms of Para 5(n)
and 5(o) of Memorandum of Settlement
dated 10.04.2002 entered Into between IBA
3 All. Rabindra Kumar Vs. Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager (O.A.D.) & Ors. 491
and workmen unlons and punishable under
para 6 of Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2002).

3- अतः आपको दनिेश दिय ि त है दक इस
आरोप-पत्र की प्र दप्त के 07 दिन के अांिर अपने बच व में दलदखत
रूप से अपन पक्ष प्रथतुत करें। यदि आप दनध ाररत अवदध में अपन
कोई बच व-पत्र प्रथतुत नहीं करते हैं तो यह समझ ि एग दक इस
सांिभा में आपको कुछ नहीं कहन है और बैंक आपकी सेव शतों के
अनुत र आपके दवरुद्ध क याव ही करने के दलए ब ध्य होगी। यदि
आप अपन िव ब प्रथतुत करने के दलए सांबद्ध अदभलेखों क
अवलोकन करन च हते है तो दनध ाररत अवदध के भीतर सांबदधधत
क्षेत्र के क्षेत्रीय प्रबधधक से अदभलेखों के अवलोकन हेतु दनवेिन कर
सकते है। कृपय ध्य न िे दक अदभलेखो के अवलोकन के समय
सांबद्ध अदभलेखो की छ य प्रदत आपको नहीं िी ि एगी। यदि आप
आवश्यक समझे तो उनमें से आवश्यक सूचन यें नोट कर सकते हैं।
आरोपों से सांबदधधत अदभलेखों दक सूची (अनुलग्नक -1) सांलग्न
है।

4. कृपय इस पत्र के दितीय प्रदत पर दिन ांदकत
प वती प्रि न करें।

अनलग्नक-1

रबीधर कुम र, सह यक

भ.दन.क्र. 6599540

द्व र भ रतीय थटेट बैंक

आरोपों से संबनन्धर् अनिलेखो की सूची :-

1. प्रवेश परीक्ष के सांिभा में ि री दकय गय क ल लेट ।

2. प्रवेश परीक्ष से सांबदधधत attendance sheet ।

3. स क्ष त्क र एवां दनयुदि से सांबदधधत क गि त ।

4. उि अदभलेखो के :दतररि यदि आवश्यक हुआ तो बैंक
आरोपी को स दबत करने के दलए अधय स क्ष्य िी प्रथतुत कर सकत
है।

5. Against the said charge, the
petitioner has submitted his explanation on
09.09.2015 whereas the respondents were
not
satisfied
with
the
explanation,
therefore, the respondents conducted an
enquiry and based on the report of
incompetent hand writing expert Sri R.
Krishna, declared charges to be proved
against the petitioner. Based on the said
inquiry report, the third respondent without
application of mind passed an order on
04.05.2016 by dismissing the petitioner
from service, as against the petitioner filed
an appeal before the respondent no. 4
bringing the relevant facts to the notice of
the Appellate Authority with prayer to set
aside the punishment order. The appeal was
rejected by the fourth respondent vide order
dated 12.08.2016 in routine manner.

6. Aggrieved by the above action of
the respondents, the petitioner preferred
writ petition being Writ-A No. 48511 of
2016 (Rabindra Kumar vs. State of U.P.
and 5 others) and after exchange of counter
and rejoinder affidavits, the said writ
petition was disposed of vide order dated
24.04.2018 with the following direction,
which reads as under :-

"Whether there was any photo
mixing or not, was a matter which could
have been examined by the enquiry officer
at least during the course of the enquiry.
Even though it may not have been possible
in the invigilation /examination centre itself
but nothing of the kind was done and the
enquiry report was based entirely upon the
report of R. Krishna, the hand writing
expert who was not even a registered
handwriting expert. There is nothing on
record to show that the petitioner had
declined that R. Krishna be produced in the
enquiry to prove his report or that he has
declined to cross-examine R. Krishna and
that he has accepted the report of the
handwriting expert. The statement of the
petitioner given during the enquiry has not
been filed by the respondents to show that
the petitioner at any time had declined to
summon Sri R. Krishna or that he had
accepted the report of the handwriting
expert R.Krishna. The fact of the matter
remains that R. Krishna on whose report
the entire enquiry report has been based
and which has been accepted by the
disciplinary authority and the appellate
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority was never produced in the
enquiry to prove his report which was a
duty cast upon the respondents holding the
enquiry. The disciplinary authority and the
appellate
authority
have
also
not
considered these various aspects of the
matter. Therefore, I find that there has been
gross infraction of principles of natural
justice and the petitioner has not been
given reasonable and adequate opportunity
to meet the report of the handwriting
expert. Such an enquiry cannot be said to
be a reasonable or fair enquiry. The order
of the disciplinary authority as well as the
appellate authority which are based on
such an enquiry report are therefore,
vitiated and are accordingly, set aside.

The writ petition is allowed.

However, it will be open for the
respondents
to
proceed
against
the
petitioner afresh after giving him an
opportunity of examination and cross
examination of Sri R. Krishna during the
enquiry and lead whatever evidence he may
want, to contradict the report of the
handwriting expert Sri R. Krishna."

7. Despite the above directions, the
respondents
have
not
reinstated
the
petitioner into service nor paid the salaries.
Hence the petitioner has pressed Contempt
Application (Civil) No.3685 of 2018. This
Court issued notice to the respondent on
03.08.2018. Thereafter, this Court further
passed an order on 30.12.2018 regarding
quantum of sentence. Based on the order of
this Court, passed in the contempt
application, the petitioner was reinstated at
Salempur Main Branch, State Bank of
India, Deoria vide order dated 30.08.2018.

8. Again respondent no. 3 by order
dated 01.10.2018 placed the petitioner
under suspension and appointed one Sri
Ritesh Sagar as Inquiry Officer, directing
the petitioner to participate in the inquiry.
Thereafter, the Regional Manager S.B.I.,
Gorakhpur had issued letter on 05.04.2021
annexing
the
inquiry
report
dated
21.07.2021 prepared by the Inquiry Officer
and Assistant General Manager. To the said
inquiry report, the petitioner has submitted
his objections before the Assistant General
Manager,
S.B.I.,
Gorakhur
through
registered post dated 12.04.2021 and
without considering the objections filed by
the petitioner, a tentative punishment order
was issued on 13.09.2021 by asking the
petitioner to appear on 20.09.2021. Again
the petitioner submitted his objection on
16.10.2021
and
without
taking
into
consideration, the respondent no.1 has
passed the impugned punishment order on
29.11.2021, dismissing the petitioner from
service.

9. Aggrieved by the above said order,
the petitioner has preferred an appeal
before the second respondent by bringing
the facts and also raising several grounds
prayed for setting aside the tentative and
final orders and reinstate the petitioner into
service but without considering the grounds
raised by the petitioner, the appeal has been
rejected in mechanical manner.

10. Assailing the same order, the
present writ petition has been filed.

11. After notice, one Sri Sunil Kumar
Maharaj, Chief Manager, State Bank of
India, Salempur Branch, District Deoria has
filed counter affidavit on behalf of the
respondents wherein he has stated that as
per
11th
Bipartite
Settlement
dated
11.11.2020, the employee who has been
awarded the punishment of dismissal,
compulsory discharge or removal from
service by the Disciplinary Authority and
subsequently where the punishment is
3 All. Rabindra Kumar Vs. Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager (O.A.D.) & Ors. 493
confirmed by the Appellate Authority, shall
be
given
an
opportunity
to
seek
reconsideration by an authority higher than
the Appellate Authority. Therefore, after
rejection of the appeal by the Appellate
Authority, the petitioner could have availed
an alternative remedy for reconsideration
before the competent authority of the Bank
rather than filing the instant petition, hence
the same should be dismissed on the
ground of availability of an alternative
remedy to the petitioner. Further, as per the
Bipartite Settlement between the State
Bank of India and Employees' Union as
such the petitioner is a "workman" within
the definition of workman as provided
under the Industrial Disputes Act and the
petitioner's dismissal is deemed to be an
Industrial Dispute within the provisions of
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Even on this ground, the writ petition
has to be dismissed.

12. The petitioner appeared in the
written examination by impersonation,
when the same was verified then it was
found that the thumb impression of the
person who appeared in the written
examination on 15.11.2009 at Jwala Devi
Vdya Mandir Post Graduate College,
Anand Bagh, Kanpur and the person who
joined the Bank on 15.12.2010, are
different. Photograph available on call
letter at the time of appearing for written
examination was also not matching as such
he
was
suspended
and
disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against him. On
the basis of material evidence on record,
the respondents have held that the charges
levelled against the petitioner have been
proved and it has been found that signature
and thumb impression of the person who
appeared in the written examination on
15.11.2009 and the person who joined in
the Bank on 15.12.2010 are different. In
fact,
the
petitioner
was
given
an
opportunity by Inquiry Officer to cross
examine the handwriting expert but he
refused to do so, inasmuch as the Appellate
Authority has recorded a finding that the
report submitted by Sri R. Krishna, on the
basis of evidence and facts, cannot be
sidelined on the basis of non-government
and non registered entity. Neither the
inquiry conducted is vitiated nor it is illegal
inasmuch as after scrutinizing the entire
material on record as well as after giving
full opportunity to the petitioner, the orders
have been passed by the respondents. As
the petitioner has played fraud upon the
Bank in getting the appointment by
falsification / impersonation, service of the
petitioner has rightly been terminated after
holding proper inquiry and after giving full
opportunity to the petitioner. There is no
violation of principles of natural justice or
any procedure contemplated under Rules.
Hence the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

13. Based on the above pleadings, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has
emphasise
his
arguments
that
the
respondents have issued charge sheet for
extraneous considerations as the petitioner
has appeared to the written examination
conducted by the respondents and at the
time
of
written
examination,
two
invigilators are present and they have
verified the petitioner and also taken
photographs,
thumb
impressions
and
signature. Accordingly, on the basis of the
result, the petitioner was selected and
appointed and based on his performance in
the duties, the petitioner has been awarded
best employee awards for continuous three
years.

14. Though the above charges have
been framed but no proper inquiry has been
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conducted by the respondents before giving
punishment order. The same was taken into
consideration by this Court in Writ-A No.
48511 of 2016. The said writ petition was
disposed of by making a remark that there
was no photograph mixing though it may
not have been possible in the invisilative /
examination centre itself and nothing of
kind was done and the inquiry report was
entirely based on the report of R. Krishna,
the handwriting expert who was not even a
registered handwriting expert and further it
has been noted that Disciplinary Authority
and Appellate Authority have also not
considered the various aspects of the matter
and recorded the gross infraction of
principles of natural justice and accordingly
the impugned orders were set aside but
liberty was granted to the respondents to
proceed against the petitioner afresh after
giving him an opportunity of examination
and cross-examination of Sri R. Krishna
during the inquiry who may lead whatever
evidence he wanted to produce regarding
report of the handwriting expert.

15. Based on the above observations
for conducting a re-inquiry the respondents
have issued notice and directed the
petitioner to cross-examine Sri R.Krishna.
When the petitioner denied the opportunity
and took specific stand that the said R.
Krishna is not a registered handwriting
expert nor is attached to any government
pharmaceutical laboratory nor he possess
any technical degree to qualify him as
handwriting expert but before considering
the said objection taken by the petitioner,
the respondents proceeded only on the
ground that this Court has given an
opportunity to the petitioner to crossexamine the R. Krishna during the inquiry.
When the petitioner has taken specific
stand regarding incompetence of the
handwriting expert, inquiry Officer has
submitted his report with the following
observation :

"I, therefore, is of the opinion
that the inquiry has been conducted for
third time (13.01.2020, 27.07.2020 and
27.01.2021) and enough opportunity have
been provided to the CSE to re-examine Shi
R Krishna report as per Hon'ble High
Court order dated 24.04.2018. The DR and
CSE appear purposely not cross verifying
he Handwriting Expert report and were
trying
to
question
the
degree
and
qualification of Sh R Krishna repeatedly.
This seems to be delaying of the process of
Inquiry of Inquiry. The cross-examination
opportunity was given by Hon'ble High
Court, which they were not ready to carry
out."

16. The petitioner has submitted his
reply on 12.04.2021, which reads as
follows : -

"सेव में,

सह यक मह प्रबधधक

भ रतीय थटेट बैंक

गोरखपुर िदक्षण

प्रश सदनक क य ालय गोरखपुर

गोरखपुर (उ०प्र०)

महोिय,

मुझे आपके द्व र प्रेदषत पत्र संख्या-गोरखपुर
(दनक्षण) नि० एवं धो०/08 05.04.2021क िो दक दिन ांक
09.04.2021 को प्र प्त हुआ दिसमें दवभ गीय ि ाँच अदधक री
िी ररतेष स गर क पुनः ि ाँच के सांबांध में दिन ांक 27.01.2021
की ररपोटा सांलग्न है दिसमें मुझे पुनः दनम्न दनवेिन करन है दक बैंक
की ि ाँच क याव ही में हम और हम रे बच व प्रदतदनदध (DR) ने
ि ाँच क याव ही में उपदथथदत R Krishna से सांबांदधत आरोपों के
ब रे में पूछ-त छ करने के दलये कह थ । परधतु म ननीय उच्च
धय य लय
के
आिेश
सांख्य
48511/016
दिन ांक
24.04.2018 के आध र पर दिसमें यह कह गय है दक
Hand Writing Exp. R Krishna दकसी भी सरक री
3 All. Rabindra Kumar Vs. Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager (O.A.D.) & Ors. 495
ि रेदधसक लैब से िु़िे हुए नहीं हैं। Government
Signature Exp. नहीं है इसदलए इनकी ररपोटा म धय नहीं है
इसदलये इनकी ररपोटा आध रहीन तथ्यहीन दवश्व स योग्य नहीं है
इसदलये हम लोगों ने R Krishna क Cross Examina
नहीं दकय है।

अगर बैंक दकसी ऐसे Signature Expert को
प्रथतुत करती है दिसक रदिथिेशन दकसी भी सरक री ि रेदधसक लैब
से िु़ि हुआ हो और म ननीय उच्च धय य लय दवश्व स करती है ऐसे
हथत क्षर दवशेषज्ञ को Cross Examina करने के दलये तैय र
है।
 यह भी कहन च हते हैं दक दिस परीक्ष कक्ष में मेरी परीक्ष हुई थी
उसके कक्ष दनरीक्षक के रूप में बैंक के अदधक री दिधहोंने हम र
िोटोग्र ि हथत क्षर की ि ाँच दकय थ । और हमको परीक्ष में बैठने
की अनुमदत िी थी उसके उपर धत बैंक की परीक्ष िी और उत्तीणा
होने में सिल हुए।

ति् उपर धत हम र स क्ष त्क र (Interview)
दलय गय और Interview Board के पैनल के सभी सिथयों
ने हथत क्षर, अांगूठे के दनश न एवां िोटो दमल न करने के ब ि सही
प य । और Interview Pannel के द्व र Interview दलय
गय और सिल होने के ब ि मुझे भ रतीय थटेट बैंक श ख
इण्डदथियल खलील ब ि सांत कबीर नगर (08231) में
16.12.2010 को दनयुदि िे दिय ।

बैंक च हती तो परीक्ष कक्ष के दनरीक्षकों एवां
स क्ष त्क र करने व ले अदधक री महोियों को ि ाँच क याव ही में
बुल कर सत्यत की ि नक री कर सकती थी परधतु उन लोगों को
ि ाँच क याव ही में न बुल कर उल्टे हम रे दखल ि मन गढांत आरोप
लग कर हमको बैंक की सेव से 07.05.2016 को बैंक की सेव
से बख ाथत कर दिय ।

ति् उपर धत मुझे म ननीय उच्च धय य लय की शरण
लेनी प़िी। म ननीय उच्च धय य लय हम रे ऊपर लग ये गये आरोपों
को आध रहीन बत ते हुए दनरथत कर दिय । और पुनः दनलम्बन
आिेश को दनरथत करते हुए दिन ांक 01.09.2018 को मुझे
ज्व इन करने क आिेश दिय ।

ह ई कोटा के आिेश के अनुस र दिसमें यह कह गय
थ दक बैंक च हे तो Cross Examina कर सकती है बैंक ने
हम रे दखल ि पुनः ि ाँच क याव ही प्र रम्भ कर िी।

लगभग तीन च र त रीखों में ि ाँच क याव ही प्र रम्भ
की गई परधतु दकसी भी ि ाँच क याव ही में परीक्ष दनरीक्षकों एवां
स क्ष त्क र लेने व ले अदधक ररयों तथ दनयुदि िेने व ले
अदधक ररयों को दकसी भी ि ाँच क याव ही में प्रथतुत नहीं दकय गय
िबदक दिन ांक 30.12.2018 को हम रे बच व प्रदतदनदध ने
सम्बदधधत परीक्ष दनरीक्षकों स क्ष त्क र करने व ले अदधक ररयों को
प्रथतुत कर पूछ-त छ करने की आवश्यकत महसूस की थी दिसको
P.O. ने इन महत्वपूणा स क्ष्यों को ि ाँच क याव ही में न बुल कर
थव भ दवक धय य की प्रदक्रय क उल्लांिन दकय तथ दनिोष
कमाच री के दहतों पर आि त दकय है। उपरोि सभी तथ्यों एवां
प्रम णों को ध्य न में रखते हुए आध रहीन एवां बेबुदनय ि आरोपों को
प्रम दणत म नते हुए CSE कमाच री के दवरुद्ध दलय गय दनणाय
एक स दिश ही प्रतीत होगी।

एक ि ाँच क याव ही िो दिन ाँक 30.12.2018
को की गई थी दिसमें ि ाँच अदधक री ने आिेश िेते हुए दलख दक
आि की ि ाँच की क याव ही सम्पधन की ि ती है। क याव ही से
सम्बदधधत ररपोटा सभी पक्षों को दिन ाँक 10 िनवरी 2021 तक
सभी पक्षों को उपलब्ध कर िी ि येगी और न तो ि ाँच क याव ही
के आध र पर कोई दनणाय दलय गय और न ही कोई आि तक
दकसी पक्ष को 31.12.2018 की सम्पधन ि ाँच क याव ही की
ररपोटा दकसी भी पक्ष को इनके द्व र नहीं उपलब्ध कर ई गई परधतु
दबन कोई आरोप पत्र के (च िाशीट) दिये पुनः क याव ही प्र रम्भ कर
िी गई यह मेरे दखल ि स दिश नहीं तो क्य है।

अतः आपसे प्र थान है दक हम रे दखल ि आध रहीन
एवां बेबुदनय ि आरोपों को असत्य म नते हुए हम रे दनलम्ब को
दनरथत कर हमको थव भ दवक धय य दिलव ने की कृप करें।

मैं आिीवन आपक आभ री रह ाँग ।

P.F. No-6599540

दिन ाँक-12.04.2021
भविीय

रवीधर कुम र सह ०

भ रतीय थटेट बैंक

मुख्य श ख - सलेमपुर

दिल -िेवररय ।"

17. Surprisingly without considering
the specific objection taken by the
petitioner, the respondents have passed the
tentative punishment order on 13.09.2021
by giving an opportunity once again and
the same orders have been confirmed and
final order has been issued by the
respondent vide order dated 29.11.2021,
which reads as follows :-

"FINAL ORDER

STAFF:AWARD
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS -
NON
VIGILANCE-GROSS
MISCONDUCT

SHRI
RABINDRA
KUMAR,
ASSOCIATE (U/S) (PF No 6599540)

BRANCH :SALEMPUR (CODE -
01146)

PERSONIFIED
HIMSELF
BY
SOMEONE ELSE (as solver) WHILE

APPEARING
IN
WRITTEN
EXMINATION

During
the
Banks
written
examintion process, Shri Rabindra Kumar,
Associate
(u/s)
PF
-6599540,
had
personified himself by someone else (as
solver)
while
appearing
in
written
examination held on 15.11.2009 at Jwala
Devi Vidya Mandi Post Gaduate College,
Anand Bagh, Kanpur and as per Forensic
Expert report, the thumb impression and
signature
obtained
during
written
examination do not match with the thumb
impression and signature obtained at the
time of interview / joining in the Bank.

Disciplinary Penalty Proceedings
under "Gross Misconduct" under clause
5(n)
and
5(o)
of
Memorandum
of
Settlement dated 10.04.2002 between IBA
& Workmen Unions and Bank Level
Settlement dated 07.04.2016 as amended /
modified by Bipartite Settlement dated
11.11.2020 between IBA & Workmen
Unions,
were
initiated
against
Shri
Rabindra Kumar Associate PF ID 6599540
vide charge sheet dated 03.09.2015 served
upon Shri Rabindra Kumar Associate, on
04.09.2015 for following lapses committed
by Shri Rabindra Kumar Associate :

"i. आपकी वनयुवक्त के सांबांि में, बैंक द्वारा विनाांक
15.11.2009 (समयः09.15AM) को ज्वाला िेवी ववद्या
मवन्िर पोस्ट ग्रेजुएट कालेज, आनन्ि बाग, कानपुर में आयोवजि
वलवखि प्रवेर्श परीक्षा के िौरान Attendance Sheet और
Call Letter पर वकए गए हस्िाक्षर एवां अांगूठे के वनर्शान िथा
बैंक द्वारा विनाांक 27.04.2010 को सम्पन्न कराये गए इांटरव्यू
और विनाांक 15.12.2010 को आपकी बैंक में वनयुवक्त के सांिभा
में आपके द्वारा वकए गए हस्िाक्षर एवां अांगूठे के वनर्शान िथा
विनाांवकि 24.04.2010 के आपके द्वारा विये गए आत्मकथ्ज्य एवां
सत्यापन फामा के सांिभा में वकये गये हस्िाक्षर एवां अांगूठे के वनर्शान
िो अलग अलग व्यवक्तयों के द्वारा वकए गए। अिः आपने ऊपर
ववणाि वलवखि परीक्षा विनाांक 15.11.2009 में अपने स्थान पर
वकसी अन्य व्यवक्त ('साजवर' Solver) को िोखािड़ी से
सवम्मवलि कराकर परीक्षा पास की।

ii. आपने िोखािड़ी एवां अनुवचि प्रवक्रया का प्रयोग
बैंक में Assistant के रूप में भिी होने के वलए वकया।"

2.
Tentative
Order
dated
13.09.2021, forwarded vide Letter No.
BCDM/1251 dated 13.09.2021, was served
upon the CSE, Shri Rabindra Kumar,
Associate, PF ID 6599540 which, he
acknowledged on 16.10.2021 and also Shri
Rabindra
Kumar, Associate,
appeared
personally for personal hearing with
undersigned on 23.11.2021.

I have once again considered all
the papers of the above case and personal
hearing with Shri Rabindra Kumar on
23.11.2021, I do not find any reason to
change my tentative order. I, therefore,
confirm
the
tentative
order
dated
13.09.2021 and finally decide that Shri
Rabindra Kumar (PF ID 6599540),
Associate (u/s), be served upon the penalty
of "Be Dismissed from Bank Service
without notice" under Clause 6(a) of
Memorandum
of
Settlement
dated
10.04.2002 between IBA & Workmen
Unions and Bank Level Settlement dated
07.04.2016 as amended / modified by
Bipartite Settlement dated 11.11.2020
between IBA & Workmen Unions.

3. A copy of the Final order is to
be placed in the CSE's service file. If Shri
Rabindra Kumar, Associate, desires to
prefere an appeal against my Final order of
date, Shri Rabindra Kumar, Associate may
do so within 45 days from the date of
receipt of the Final Order under the
provision of Clause 14 of Memorandum of
3 All. Rabindra Kumar Vs. Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager (O.A.D.) & Ors. 497
settlement dated 10.04.2002 between IBA
& Workmen Unions and Bank Level
Settlement dated 07.04.2016 as amended /
modified by Bipartite Settlement dated
11.11.2020 between IBA & Workmen
Union."

18. As against the petitioner has filed
an appeal before the second respondent
wherein he has taken specific grounds that
inquiry officer in his inquiry report dated
27.01.2021 has not himself examined any
documents and material and without any
basis as well as without recording any
independent finding held charge to be
proved against the petitioner herein and
submitted his report solely based on the
opinion of the handwriting expert Sri R.
Krishna which is unsustainable. Further, Sri
R.Krishna cannot be said to be a
handwriting expert as he is simply B.Sc.,
LLB, MA (Criminology and Forensic
Science) and he was not appointed an
Assistant
Professor,
Criminology
and
Forensic Science in Sagar University,
Madhya Pradesh.

19. The said R. Krishna has never
been
recognized
and
appointed
as
handwriting expert in any government
forensic labs or institutions. Hence the
alleged handwriting expert report is not a
conclusive written and the same cannot be
made as basis to dismiss the appeal.

20. It was incumbent upon the inquiry
officer to call the two invigilators who were
present at the time of examination and
summoning the original attendance register,
call letter, admit card and the documents
which were prepared at the time of
interview
containing
signatures,
photographs of the appellant to compare
the same in presence of the appellant which
was not followed by the inquiry officer.
Even it is an obligation on the part of the
Bank to summon all interview board
members
and
the
original
registers
containing
the
signature
and
thumb
impressions obtained during the interview
for verification.

21. In fact, the appellant had appeared
before the Inquiry Officer on 03.11.2021
before the Disciplinary Authority and
pressed the facts and also requested to
consider
his
representation
dated
16.10.2021. He has also raised specific
ground that the Inquiry Officer has not
made
any
inquiry
or
recorded
any
independent findings against the charges
except relying on the report of alleged
handwriting expert of Sri R. Krishna and
the appeal has been dismissed by the
second
respondent
vide
order
dated
27.01.2022
with
the
following
observations, which reads as follows :-

"4. I have carefully examined the
ground raised by Shri Rabindra Kumar in
his appeal in the light of relevant records of
the case and may observations are as under
:

The appellant has not brought out
any new facts to rebut the allegations. In
compliance to Hon'ble High Court order,
ample opportunity give to him to cross
examine report and certificates submitted
by hand writing expert, but he refused to do
so and doubt the legality of certificates and
report. Therefore, Bank have take his
action tantamount to the Gross Misconduct.

5. I have gone through the appeal
preferred
by
Shri
Rabindra
Kumar,
Associate and the related case papers in its
entirety. I do not find any worthwhile
grounds in the appeal that would warrant
interference
with
the
order
of
the
Disciplinary Authority. The quantum of
penalty imposed is considered equitable
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and commensurate with the nature of
allegations held as established. The appeal
is turned down and the order is passed
accordingly."

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that on perusal of the entire
inquiry report, it clearly shows that the
Inquiry Officer has not conducted any
independent inquiry with regard to the
charges framed against the petitioner
except relying on the report submitted by
Sri R. Krishna in which he has stated that
enough opportunity has been provided to
the CSE to re-examine the Sri R.Krishna
which he has refused to cross-examine the
R. Krishna report and certificate has been
submitted that legality of petitioner is
doubtful, therefore, the Bank may take
against him as it may deem fit. Based on
the
above
inquiry
report
without
application of mind the Disciplinary
Authority has passed an order stating that
after examining the matter carefully, going
through the case and taking consideration
of the gravity of lapses, the dismissal order
was passed against the petitioner. Even the
Appellate
Authority
has
not
at
all
considered the facts and also ground raised
by the petitioner and simply extracted the
entire appeal in the impugned order and
dismissed appeal accordingly.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the Inquiry Officer,
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority have not applied their mind
while deciding the issue. The petitioner has
taken specific objection with regard to the
appointment
of
Sri
R.
Krishna
as
handwriting expert as he has not a qualified
or
government
handwriting
expert.
However, he has not having any specific
qualifications for handwriting expert. So
report which was submitted cannot be
taken into consideration. No specific
averments or assertions made either by the
Inquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary
Authority in this regard. Hence, on this
ground,
alone
the
punishment
order
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has
to go. Further, the learned counsel
emphasised his arguments that while
dealing with the matter of such nature, it is
incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to call
for
the
entire
record
pertaining
to
examination centre, interview Board's
record and finally to send both documents
to the forensic laboratory to get a clear
report but in the instant case no such
procedure has been followed by the Inquiry
Officer. Further he has not taken any care
to call for the record pertaining to
examination centre records as well as
interview Board's record.

24. Despite the petitioner has made a
specific request to look into those aspects
before taking into consideration of the
report submitted by Sri R. Krishna, who is
an ineligible person but surprisingly
Inquiry Officer has submitted inquiry
report solely based on the report submitted
by the handwriting expert Sri R. Krishna
and Disciplinary Authority has also taken
into consideration of the report submitted
by the Inquiry Officer and passed the
impugned order.

25. Perusal of both the orders
Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate
Authority, it appears that they have not
even cared to refer the objections raised by
the petitioner and no finding has been given
to that effect. Surprisingly, the Appellate
Authority also has not given any reasons
except stating that record has been perused.

26. To support his contention, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
3 All. Rabindra Kumar Vs. Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager (O.A.D.) & Ors. 499
decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case
of Ran Vijay Singh v. Union of India
reported
in
2018
(4)
AWC
3581.
particularly Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
and 27, which reads thus :

22. A learned Single Judge of this
Court in Rajesh Kumar (supra) had
examined a similar controversy, where
services of a probationer was dispensed
with by the Bank, on the ground that he had
cleared recruitment exam on the basis of
impersonation. This Court observed that
handwriting expert's opinion is at best an
expert opinion, which is not conclusive.
Observation of the learned Single Judge is
apposite
for
our
purposes
and
is
reproduced hereinafter:-

"Expert opinion is only an
opinion and has been considered to be of a
very weak nature. The decision of the bank
is based on the expert opinion alone to
establish the guilt of impersonation.

In Gulzar Ali Vs. Sate of
Himachal Pradesh the Supreme Court
observed that the observation of the High
Court that there is a natural tendency on
the part of an expert witness to support the
view of the party who called him, could not
be downgraded. Many so-called experts
have been shown to be remunerated
witnesses making themselves available on
hire to pledge their oath in favour of the
party paying them.

This Court considering large
number of judgments in Tika Ram vs.
Daulat Ram7 held as follows:-

"9. Evidence of an expert is only
an opinion. Expert evidence is only a piece
of evidence and external evidence. It has to
be considered along with other pieces of
evidence. Which would be the main
evidence and which is the corroborative
one depends upon the facts of each case.
An expert's opinion is admissible to furnish
the Court a scientific opinion which is
likely to be outside the experience and
knowledge of a Judge. This kind of
testimony, however, has been considered to
be of very weak nature and expert is
usually required to speak, not to facts, but
to opinions. It is quite often surprising to
see with what facility, and to what extent,
their views would be made to correspond
with the wishes and interests of the parties
who call them. They do not, indeed, wilfully
misrepresent what they think, but their
judgment becomes so warped by regarding
the subject in one point of view, that, when
conscientiously deposed, they are incapable
of expressing a candid opinion."

The
Court
has
made
the
observation in trial, treating handwriting
expert evidence as being opinion evidence.
In service jurisprudence allegation has to
be proved on preponderance and not
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
But
the
delinquent employee has to be confronted
with the evidence as it is rebuttable.

Applying the law on the facts of
the case, a perusal of the report dated
5.7.2011 submitted by one R. Krishna
(B.Sc., L.L.B., M.A. (Criminology &
Forensic Science) Consulting Forensic
Expert formerly Assistant Professor of
Criminology & Forensic Science (Sagar
University) rendered the following opinion
which is extracted below:

On a very careful examination of
the signatures, thumb impressions and
photographs of the above referred person, I
am of the following opinion:-

(a) The signatures made on Call
Letter at the time of examination does not
match with the other standard signatures of
Sri Rajesh Kumar. The reasons of my
opinion are in Annexure No. 1.

(b) The thumb impression on the
Call Letter, which is expected to be of Right
Thumb do not match with the specimen
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thumb of Right Thumb of Sri Rajesh Kumar.
The reasons of my opinion are given in
Annexure No. 2.

(c) The photographs on the Call
Letter of the person who appeared in the
examination does not match with the
photographs of the person who is joining
the Bank. The reasons of my opinion are
given in Annexure No. 3.

Opinion:
On
very
careful
examination
of
the
above
referred
signatures and writing written as 'Rajesh
Kumar' as in A-2, I am of the opinion, that
the signature D-1 is not made by the same
person, who has made the signatures and
writing S-1 to S-3 and A-1 to A-3.

Reference of Photographs:

(A)= Standard photograph of Sri.
Rajesh Kumar Submitted at the time of
joining of the Bank.

(B)= Photograph of the Call
Letter of the person who appeared in the
examination.

Opinion:
On
very
careful
examination of the two above referred
photographs marked (A) and (B), I am of
the opinion, the photograph (A) differs with
that of (B) and both the photographs are
not of the same person.

The reasons of my opinion are
follows:

1. ...................

2.The
length
of
face
of
photograph(A) is more than that of (B).

3.The width of the face of
photograph (A) should have been more
than that of the face of photograph (B) in
the same proportion, but it is not. The width
of the face of photograph(A) is lesser than
of the face of the photograph (B) as marked
by the red line of the photographic
enlargement.

4...................

5...................

6...................

It is contended on behalf of the
respondents that the principles of natural
justice would not apply in the facts of the
present case, as the petitioner has obtained
appointment on the basis of fraud and
misrepresentation and in any case, the
petitioner was on probation hence, the
petitioner's service could be terminated
without assigning any reason.