# Rama Shankar Tiwari s/o Jagat Narain Tiwari v. Central Bank & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 352
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-23
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 403 of 2010
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rama-shankar-tiwari-s-o-jagat-narain-tiwari-v-central-bank-anr-54506
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 4 ILRA 352
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 403 of 2010

Rama Shankar Tiwari s/o Jagat Narain Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Bank & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of non-supply of relied documents, and not providing evidences and opportunity of cross
examination before dismissing from service.
(2) Applicability of Regulation 21(B) of Canara Bank Service Code in the matter of imposing punishment of
dismissal.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Dismissal - Principle of natural justice - Applicability - Charge of involving in a
criminal case - Petitioner was acquitted - However, he was served charge sheet - Though copy
of evidences were sought, but respondent failed to provide it - No opportunity of cross
examination was provided - Effect - Applicability of Regulation 21(B) of Canara Bank Service
Code felt into consideration: (E-1)
Held: The denial of adequate opportunity to defend, coupled with non-supply of relied upon documents,
strikes at the very root of a fair inquiry. It is well settled that any order founded upon such vitiated inquiry
cannot be sustained - The inquiry, therefore, has been conducted in clear breach of fair procedure, rendering
the entire proceedings arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law - The disciplinary authority failed to
afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the stage of final decision. Even though
issuance of second show cause notice may not be expressly provided, the requirement of fair hearing
mandates that the delinquent employee be made aware of the findings of the inquiry and be given an
opportunity to respond. The failure to do so further vitiates the impugned orders. [Para 20, 21 and 24]
Further held: Regulation 21(B), clearly indicates that in a case where an employee is acquitted, even if
departmental proceedings are contemplated, the ultimate punishment, if any, could only be termination with
notice pay and not dismissal from service, and the period of suspension is liable to be treated in the manner
provided therein. The action of the respondents in imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal, therefore, is
contrary to the statutory provisions governing the field and is wholly without jurisdiction. [Para 23]

Case Law Cited
Writ Petition No. 12326 of 2017, Eknath Shankar Kamble vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and
others decided on 08.06.2023 (Bombay High Court). - referred to.

List of Acts
Canara Bank Service Code - Chapter XI Regulation 4; Regulation 21(B) .

List of Keywords
Suspension, Criminal case, Acquittal, Reinstatement in service, Departmental proceeding, Charge sheet, Copy
of evidences, Arbitrary, Cross examination, Principle of natural justice, Explanation, Dismissal, Infirmity,
4 All. Rama Shankar Tiwari s/o Jagat Narain Tiwari Vs. Central Bank & Anr.
353
Illegality, Benefit of doubt, Reasonable opportunity of hearing, Documentary evidences, Unproved and
undisclosed materials.

Case Arising From
Impugned dismissal order dated 18.03.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 and the appellate order dated
24.12.2008 passed by respondent No. 1.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: C. B. Pandey (Sr. Adv.) Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Ms. Arundhati Thakur, Sunil
Sharma, Chandra Bhushan Pandey.
Advs. for the Respondents: Vinay Shanker.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri C.B. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Manoj
Kumar Dwivedi and Ms. Arundhati Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinay
Shanker, learned counsel for respondent - Bank.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.03.2008
passed by respondent No.2 as well as appellate order dated 24.12.2008 passed by respondent No.1
contained as Annexures 1 & 2 to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner while working as Special Assistant in
Sultanpur Branch transferred to Kurwar Branch of the Bank. On 22.11.1996, he was suspended
from service. On 28.12.1996, a FIR was lodged against him. In the year 2000, the petitioner filed
Writ Petition No.1379 (S/S) of 2000 challenging the impugned order of suspension, which was
disposed of vide order dated 22.10.2005.

4. In pursuance to FIR, in criminal trial of criminal Case No.66 of 2004, the petitioner was
acquitted vide order dated 24.11.2005. After acquittal, the petitioner submitted an application on
20.02.2006 before respondent No.2 through respondent No.4 stating for reinstatement of service.

5. The petitioner received a letter dated 13.04.2006 from respondent No.2 informing him that
since departmental proceedings are contemplated against him, his suspension is being continued.

6. In year 2006, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4822 (S/S) of 2006 challenging the order
of suspension dated 22.11.1996. On 18.05.2006, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet and
given several representations to the respondents to provide copy of evidences. However, he has not
been provided copies of evidences.

7. On 16.10.2008, Central Information Commission gave direction to the respondents to
provide copy of evidences. On 18.05.2006, in absence of copy of evidences, the petitioner
submitted his reply to the charge sheet. The inquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner and
during whole inquiry only one witness Sri Shreenivas Srivastava - account holder was produced.
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. On 08.03.2007, a show cause notice was served to the petitioner, whereby the date of
personal heraing was fixed on 14.03.2008 at Lucknow. The petitioner vide letter dated 12.03.2008
informed the respondent No.2 that he is unable to present himself on 13th and 14th of the month.

9. In year 2008, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1545 (S/S) of 2008 for direction to the
respondents to provide copy of evidences. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that
respondents have already passed the dismissal order.

10. Against the order of dismissal dated 18.03.2008, the petitioner filed appeal to the General
Manager, Canara Bank, which was rejected vide order dated 24.12.2008, against which the present
writ petition has been preferred.

11. Assailing the impugned orders, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in
the impugned orders provisions of rules referred at Chapter XI Regulation 4 of Canara Bank
Service Code is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. In respect of acquittal in criminal case,
provisions of Regulation B of Section 21 is applicable, which lays down following provisions:

"(b) the employee is acquitted, it shall be open to the Deputy General Manager of Circle
Office / International Division/ Inspection Department / The Assistant General Manager of
Personnel Wing, Head Office, to proceed against him under the provisions set out herein above
regarding misconducts. If after enquiry it is decided not to continue the employee in service, he
shall be liable only for termination of service with three month's pay and allowances in lieu of
notice; and he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and
shall be entitled to full pay and allowances minus such subsistence allowance as he has drawn and
all other privilages for the period of suspension.

Provided that if the employee be acquitted by being given the benefit of doubt, he may be
paid such portion of such pay and allowances as the Deputy General Manager of Circle Office /
International Division / Inspection Department / The Assistant General Manager of Personnel
Wing, Head Office, may deem proper, and the period of his absence shall not be treated as period
spent on duty unless the Deputy General Manager of Circle Office/International
Division/Inspection Department/ The Assistant General Manager of Personnel Wing, Head Office,
so direct."

therefore, his submission is that the order of dismissal is wholly illegal and without
jurisdiction.

12. He next submitted that the inquiry committee has not provided opportunity to file reply
after providing evidences relied upon by the disciplinary authority. In spite of repeated attempts to
supply copy of evidences relied upon, the same was not made available to the petitioner nor the
reply submitted by the petitioner has ever been considered while concluding the inquiry, therefore,
his submission is that without hearing the petitioner on charges and without cross examination of
witnesses, who were 14 in number, the inquiry report vitiates in law and the order passed on the
basis of said inquiry is wholly without jurisdiction and is per se illegal.

13. He further submitted that although under the rules there is no provision to issue second
show cause notice along with inquiry report, even then to avoid non compliance of principles of
4 All. Rama Shankar Tiwari s/o Jagat Narain Tiwari Vs. Central Bank & Anr.
355
natural justice, the disciplinary authority would have been provided second show cause notice
along with inquiry report seeking explanation from the petitioner, which has not been done in the
present case, therefore, his submission is that the order being passed on violation of principles of
natural justice is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

14. His last submission is that the order of dismissal awarded in the case of the petitioner is
wholly illegal and cannot be passed in case the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case,
therefore, the order impugned is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside by this Court. In support
of his submissions, he placed reliance upon a judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of
Eknath Shankar Kamble Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and others; Writ
Petition No.12326 of 2017 decided on 08.06.2023.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submitted that although 14
witnesses, whose account numbers were found to be illegal were not examined as witnesses, the
order impugned has been passed on the basis of documents available on record, therefore, his
submission is that there is no illegality in the order of dismissal and the same is just and valid.

16. He next submitted that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed under Chapter
XXI Rule 4(B) of Rules / Regulations, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and
submitted that the respondent - Bank has not has not committed any error in passing the impugned
orders.

17. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record as well as law report cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

18. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, relevant portion of the judgment relied
upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is being quoted below:

"32. I am conscious that the decision in the case of B.S. Sawai (supra), was rendered in a
different fact situation, wherein the employee was prosecuted for an offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 In the case of Manohar Shankar Dhoke (supra), in addition to
acquittal in the criminal case, the employee therein was also exonerated in a disciplinary inquiry
and that constituted an additional circumstance. However, the fact remains that mere use of the
expression ?benefit of doubt? in the judgment of criminal court, by itself, would not deprive the
employee from claiming that the acquittal was ?honourable? or ?clean?. If in the totality of the
circumstances, the court comes to the conclusion that the acquittal of an employee is after
consideration of the entire material and recording categorical finding that the guilt is not proved,
the fact that the criminal court had also used an expression ?benefit of doubt? in the judgment
would not constitute an impediment in inferring ?honourable acquittal?."

19. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I
have perused the material available on record and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for
the petitioner.
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. This Court finds that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner stand
vitiated on account of gross violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, though the
charges were based upon documentary evidences and statements of as many as 14 account holders,
neither the copies of such evidences were supplied to the petitioner despite repeated requests and
even directions of the Central Information Commission, nor the said witnesses were produced for
cross-examination. The inquiry, therefore, has been conducted in clear breach of fair procedure,
rendering the entire proceedings arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

21. This Court further finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet, in absence of relevant documents,
could not have been meaningfully considered. The denial of adequate opportunity to defend,
coupled with non-supply of relied upon documents, strikes at the very root of a fair inquiry. It is
well settled that any order founded upon such vitiated inquiry cannot be sustained.

22. So far as the effect of acquittal in the criminal case is concerned, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner has been acquitted by the competent criminal court after full trial. In light of the law laid
down in Eknath Shankar Kamble Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and
others (Supra), as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, even where the expression
"benefit of doubt" is used, the Court is required to examine the nature of acquittal in its entirety. In
the present case, the acquittal is based on consideration of the entire evidence and failure of
prosecution to establish guilt, which, in effect, amounts to a clean acquittal. Thus, the respondents
were required to proceed strictly in accordance with the applicable service regulations.

23. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Canara Bank Service Code, particularly
Regulation 21(B), clearly indicates that in a case where an employee is acquitted, even if
departmental proceedings are contemplated, the ultimate punishment, if any, could only be
termination with notice pay and not dismissal from service, and the period of suspension is liable to
be treated in the manner provided therein. The action of the respondents in imposing the extreme
penalty of dismissal, therefore, is contrary to the statutory provisions governing the field and is
wholly without jurisdiction.

24. This Court also finds that the disciplinary authority failed to afford a reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the stage of final decision. Even though issuance of
second show cause notice may not be expressly provided, the requirement of fair hearing mandates
that the delinquent employee be made aware of the findings of the inquiry and be given an
opportunity to respond. The failure to do so further vitiates the impugned orders.

25. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that the findings
are based on documentary evidence alone cannot be accepted in view of the fact that such
documents were never supplied to the petitioner, nor proved in accordance with law. Reliance on
such unproved and undisclosed material is impermissible and cannot form the basis of a valid
disciplinary action.

26. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 18.03.2008 passed by respondent No.2 as
4 All. Luxmi Shankar Tiwari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
357
well as the appellate order dated 24.12.2008 passed by respondent No.1 are unsustainable in law
and are liable to be quashed.

27. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

28. The impugned orders dated 18.03.2008 and 24.12.2008 are hereby quashed. The
respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential
benefits in accordance with law. However, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed afresh, if
so advised, strictly in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity to the petitioner.

29. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 357
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 4474 of 2016

Luxmi Shankar Tiwari & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Entitlement of payment of salary on the strength of appointment, which was found void ab initio as the
same was granted to a minor person.
(2) Effect of practicing suppression of material particulars, while seeking discretionary relief under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Payment of salary - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ - Suppression of
material facts - Post of Peon and Clerk - Age limit - Eligibility - Both the petitioners were minor
on the date of appointment - In the writ petition, the date of appointment was differently
mentioned from the date recorded in appointment schedule -Effect - Issue of effect of
suppression of material particulars, while seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India also felt into consideration: (E-1)
Held: The inconsistency in their pleadings with regard to the date of appointment, initially asserted to be the
year 1977 and subsequently altered to 1980, is not a mere trivial or inadvertent discrepancy, but one that
strikes at the very root of their claim. Such mutually destructive stands clearly betray a calculated attempt to
improve upon the case and to mislead the Court. It is a well-settled principle of law that a litigant invoking the
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court is under a solemn obligation to disclose full, true, and
correct facts. Any suppression, concealment, or distortion of material particulars disentitles such a litigant
from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Para 51]
Further held: Any appointment of a minor to a post in an institution is impermissible and void ab initio - The
appointments in question are ex facie in clear violation of the mandatory statutory provisions governing
recruitment - Such fundamental lapses go to the root of the matter and render the entire selection process