# Ramesh Chandra Pandey v. Central Bank of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 974
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-18
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 16385 of 2008
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-pandey-v-central-bank-of-india-ors-50653
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

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

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

The writ petition was dismissed.

References:

## Text

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

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 16385 of 2008

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

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

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

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

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

The writ petition was dismissed.

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. By order dated 26.09.2022, the
Apex Court made a request from this Court
to take up this writ petition at an early date
and conclude the proceedings as early as
8 All. Ramesh Chandra Pandey Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.
975
possible, preferably within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of copy of
order. The period of six months has already
expired in March, 2023.

3. The matter has been placed before
me for the first time.

4. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties at length on 21.07.2023, the
judgment was reserved.

5. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 20.12.2006,
whereby the petitioner was dismissed from
banking services and also the order dated
30.11.2007, whereby his departmental
appeal against the punishment order was
dismissed. A writ of mandamus has also
been sought regarding reinstatement of the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Manager
in the respondent-Bank with all financial
and other consequential benefits as per the
pleadings contained in the writ petition.

6. As per the pleadings contained in
the writ petition, the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier
in the office of Central Bank of India at
Ram Kola Branch Deoria and, thereafter,
he was promoted on the post of Sub
Accountant/Assistant Manager, Padrauna
Branch on 28.8.1985. On 31.12.1990, a
new branch of the Central Bank of India
was opened at Village Vishnupura, which
was about 9 Kms. away from the office of
Padrauna Branch Deoria and in addition to
his duties, the petitioner was given the
charge of the Branch Manager of the
Vishnupura Branch. The petitioner worked
on the post of Assistant Manager, Padrauna
Branch as well as also discharged his duties
on the post of Branch Manager, Vishnupura
from 31.12.1990 to 22.06.1991 and during
the said period, except the petitioner, no
other employee was posted at Vishnupura
Branch. Apart from the duty of officiating
Branch
Manager
at
Vishnupura,
the
petitioner had to work in the capacity of
clerk, cashier and peon and also Manager
to run cash remittance as per Banks Rules
and norms and was also to fetch cash
remittance to its nearest Padrauna Branch.
There was no regular conveyance in
between
the
Branches
of
Village
Vishnupura
and
Padrauna,
and
the
petitioner had to cover the said distance up
and down, either by Rickshaw or Tanga,
which created a lot of complications to the
petitioner in attending the office of both the
Branches on every working day due to non
availability of other staffs. On 09.05.1991,
the then Regional Manager, Central Bank
of India, Gorakhpur issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner with regard to delay
in deposit of remittance of Vishnupura
Branch to the Padrauna Branch, which was
replied by the petitioner on 18.05.1991.
Vide order dated 12.08.1991, the petitioner
was placed under suspension by the
Regional
Manager,
Gorakhpur
w.e.f.
13.08.1991
in
contemplation
of
the
departmental enquiry. On 02.12.1991, the
Regional
Manager,
Regional
Office,
Central Bank of India, Gorakhpur issued a
charge sheet to the petitioner on flimsy,
fake and vague allegations describing the
following five charges:

(i) While working at Padrauna Branch
Sri Pandey was deputed to Vishnupura
Branch occasionally as Officiating Branch
Manager from where he look cash of Rs.
1345/- of Rs. 2100/- of on 18.02.1991,
21.02.1991, 10.04.1991 respectively to
deposit the same at Padrauna Branch.
Though Sri Pandey reached at Padrauna
Branch well in this the office of these dates,
but he did not deposit the cash & kept the
same
with
him
unauthorisedly
and
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deposited only after one two days the cash
which he look on 18.02.1991 deposited on
20.02.1991, 21.02.1991 on 22.02.1991, and
10.04.1991 on 11.04.1991. He had thus
defalcated Bank's money temporarily.

(ii). Sri Pandey misappropriated a
credit entry of Rs. 800/- dated 24.03.1990
from term loan (Tractor) A/C Radha Kishan
Singh & others to term loan (Kirana shop)
A/C Chhedi Yadav by altering the credit
voucher dt. 23/24.03.1990 for Rs. 800/- and
making a fake entry in C/P sundry credits
of the same amount on 24.01.1991 and
withdraw the same on 29.01.1991 itself
through a debit cash voucher putting his
signature on overleaf as a taken of having
received the amount for Chhedi Yadav.
Thus, Sri Pandey withdraw Rs. 800/- in a
fraudulent SION Oway.

(iii). Sri Pandey to minimize the
overdrawings in his personal overdraft
account,
credited
Rs.
11000/-
on
13.11.1990 intentionally in his personal
overdraft account, which was deposited
by M/S Patna Pharmacy for credit to the
overdraft account. To cover up the same,
he also posted cheque No. 0515435 for
Rs. 6831/- issued by M/S Patna Pharmacy
for issue of a demand draft in his
personal overdraft account on 13.11.1990
itself. This, Sri Pandey had acted
unlawfully,

(iv). Sri Pandey passed his own
conveyance
reimbursement
bill
on
02.02.1991 for the month of January 1991
for Rs. 887.60 in the capacity of Manager
though no power was vested in him to his
own bill. He had this unauthorisedly taken
the conveyance reimbursement and derived
under pecuniary benefit.

(v). Sri Pandey released a voucher for
Rs. 800/- on 21.01.1991 being the medical
aid for the year 1991 in his favour without
any sanction from the competent authority.
He has thus, abused his official position.

7. A departmental enquiry was
conducted against
the petitioner and
concluded with submission of report dated
31.03.1993
by
the
Inquiry
Officer
recording the following findings:

(i) The charge No. 1 is not proved.

(ii) The charge No. 2 is proved upto
the extent that C.S.O. has altered the entry
of Rs. 800/- without verification etc. but he
was not found guilty of withdrawing Rs.
800/- in fraudulent way. Thus, this part of
the charge is not proved.

(iii) The charge is proved upto the
extent
that
C.S.O.
has
posted
the
voucher/cheque in wrong account but mala
fide intention not proved.

(iv) The fact remains that C.S.O. was
not having power to pass his own
conveyance bill thus he is found guilty of
passing his own conveyance bill without
any power. But other part of the charge that
he derived undue pecuniary benefit could
not be proved.

(v) C.S.O. not been found guilty for
abusing his official position.

8.

Thereafter,
the
Disciplinary
Authority, by order dated 03.11.1993,
recording his dissatisfaction with the
conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer,
awarded punishment to the petitioner in the
following terms:

(i) CHARGE NO. 1: Discharge from
service in terms of Regulation 4(g) of
Central Bank of India Officer Employee
(Discipline & Appeal) 1976.

(ii) CHARGE NO. 2: Discharge from
service in terms of regulation 4 (g) of
Central Bank of India Officer Employee
(Discipline & Appeal) 1976).

(iii) CHARGE NO. 3: "Reduction of
two Increments in a time scale" in terms of
Regulation 4 (e) of Central Bank of India
8 All. Ramesh Chandra Pandey Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.
977
Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal)
1976).

(iv) CHARGE NO. 4: "Censure" in terms
of regulation 4 (a) of Central Bank of India
Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) 1976.

(v) CHARGE NO. 5: "Censure" in terms
of regulation 4 (a) of Central Bank of India
Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) 1976.

Looking to the above charges, I hereby
award
a
consolidated
punishment
of
DISCHARGE FROM SERVICE in terms of
regulation 4 (a) of Central Bank of India
Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) 1976
with immediate effect.

9. The petitioner preferred an appeal,
which was also dismissed by the Appellate
Authority by order dated 25.06.1994.

10. The aforesaid two orders were set
aside by the Division Bench of this Court by
order dated 15.09.1999 passed in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 35032 of 1994 (Ramesh
Chandra Pandey vs Central Bank of India &
others), leaving it open to the Bank to proceed
in accordance with law. The Division Bench
took a view that principles of Natural Justice
had been violated, particularly, in relation to
the aspect when the Disciplinary Authority
was proceeding to take a view different from
what had been taken by the Enquiry Officer.

11. Pursuant to the order dated
15.09.1999, the Bank again proceeded with
the matter and, by order dated 01.03.2001,
awarded consolidated penalty of dismissal
from service as per Regulations of 1976.
The appeal preferred against the said order
was also dismissed on 21.05.2001.

12. The petitioner again challenged
the punishment and appellate orders before
this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 46839 of 2002 (Ramesh
Chandra Pandey vs Central Bank of India,
Mumbai & others), which was allowed by
the Division Bench by order dated
21.08.2006. The relevant portion of the said
order is extracted herein-below:

"In the result, the impugned orders
dated 1.3.2001 (Annexure No. 28 to the
writ petition) passed by the disciplinary
authority and the order dated 11.3.2002
(Annexure No. 32 to the writ petition)
passed by the appellate authority are
hereby quashed. The matter is sent back to
the
disciplinary
authority
for
reconsideration
of
the
quantum
of
punishment as observed herein above by
passing a reasoned and speaking order
after affording fullest opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, in accordance
with law within a period of one month
from the date of communication of this
order and in case any appeal is filed the
appellate authority will decide the same in
the same manner positively within a
period of one month from the date of
filing of such appeal. It is made clear that
the observations made by this Court will
not have any binding effect on the
disciplinary authority or in case of appeal
upon the appellate authority and it will
reconsider the matter afresh in the same
manner.

13. This Court, while remanding the
matter to the Disciplinary Authority, made
it clear that the Authority had to take a
decision on quantum of punishment and
that the observations made in the order
would not have any binding effect on the
Disciplinary Authority or in case of appeal,
upon the Appellate Authority.

14. After remand, the Disciplinary
Authority again awarded same major
penalty of dismissal from service by order
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 20.12.2006 (first order impugned in
the present writ petition), which has been
affirmed by the Appellate Authority by
dismissing the appeal by order dated
30.11.2007 (second order impugned in the
present writ petition).

15. The submission of Shri O.P.
Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the petitioner, is to the effect
that once the Enquiry Officer had clearly
recorded in the enquiry report that the
charge No. 1 was not proved, the petitioner
was not found guilty of withdrawing Rs.
800/- in fraudulent way, while considering
the charge No. 2, charge No. 3 was proved
to some extent, but mala fide intention of
the petitioner was not proved, the petitioner
was
not
found
deriving
any undue
pecuniary benefit under the charge No. 4
and lastly, while considering the charge No.
5, a clear finding was recorded by the
Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was not
found guilty for abusing his official
position, it was not just and proper for the
respondent to award any punishment to the
petitioner.

16. It has further been argued by Shri
O.P. Singh that initial order of Disciplinary
Authority and Appellate Authority were
quashed by this Court on 15.09.1999 by
recording cogent findings and, even after
remand, same view was taken by the
Authorities and same punishment was
awarded, which was again set aside by this
Court by order dated 21.08.2006, in which
once it was clearly recorded that some
delay occurred in deposit of cash amount
from one Branch to another and that
admitted case of the parties is of not
withholding the amount by the petitioner
with him and in absence of any proof of
mala fide intention on the part of the
petitioner,
again
extreme
penalty
of
dismissal from services was unjustified. It
has further been argued that the Bank
Authorities had made their mind to
somehow punish the petitioner, despite
successive intervention made by this Court
in the aforesaid decisions and, hence, the
orders impugned are in the teeth of orders
passed by this Court.

17. On merits of the punishment order
and the departmental proceedings held
against the petitioner, reliance has been
place by Shri O.P. Singh on the following
authorities:

(1) Ajay Kumar Chaudhay vs U.O.I.
through its Secretary & Another; 2015 (7)
SCC 291

(2) Ram Ratan vs State of U.P. and
others; 2019 (4) ADJ 870 (LB)

(3) State of U.P and others. vs Saroj
Kumar Sinha; 2010 (1) Supreme 561

(4)Indrani Bai (Smt.) vs Union of
India and others; 1994 Supp (2) SCC 256

(5)Tajmahal
Hotel
vs
Industrial
Tribunal & others; 2010 (0) Supreme
(DEL) 428

(6) Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab
National Bank and others; 2009 (1)
Supreme 438

(7) Punjab National Bank and others
vs Kunj Behari Misra; 1998 (7) SCC 84

(8) State Bank of India and others vs
K.P. Narayanan Kutty; 2003(2) SCC 449

(9) State Bank of India and others vs
Arvind K. Shukla; 2004 (13) SCC 797

(10) Ranjit Singh vs Union of India
and others; 2006 (4) SCC 153

(11) Lav Nigam vs Chairman & MD
ITI Ltd. & another; 2006 (9) SCC 440

(12)
S.P.
Malhotra
vs
Punjab
National Bank and others; 2013 (7) SCC
251

(13) Punjab National Bank and
others vs K.K. Verma; 2011 AIR (SC) 120
8 All. Ramesh Chandra Pandey Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.
979

(14) State Bank of India. vs D.C.
Aggarwal; 1992 Law Suit (SC) 671

(15) Oriental Bank of Commerce and
others vs S.S. Sheokand and Another;
2014 (5) SCC 172

(16) S.N. Narula vs Union of India
and others; 2011 (4) SCC 591

(17) Joint Action Committee of Air
Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI)
and others vs Director General of Civil
Aviation and others; 2011 (5) SCC 435

(18) Mohd. Yunus Khan vs State of
U.P. and others; 2010 (7) Supreme 970

(19) Chairman-cum-M.D. Coal India
Ltd. and others vs Ananta Saha and
others; 2011 (5) SCC 142

(20) Nishith Chandra Tiwari vs Uttar
Pradesh Sahkari Gramya Vikas Bank
Ltd.; 2003 Law Suit (ALL) 532

(21) Gopal Kumar Mahur vs State of
U.P. and another; 2008 Law Suit (All) 517

(22) Union of India vs Hemraj Singh
Chauhan and others; 2010 (2) Supreme 521

(23) M.P. Gupta vs Syndicate Bank
and others; 2011 (2) AWC 1193

(24) Shripati Tripathi vs State of U.P.
and others; 2010 (10) ADJ 331 (DB)

(25) Syam Babu Savita vs State of
U.P. and another; 2015 (2) ADJ 614

(26) Ram Niyadi Rai vs State of U.P.
and another; 2016 (9) ADJ 603 (DB)

(27) Constable AP-90 Shashi Kant
Pandey vs State of U.P. Through Principal
Secretary and another (Writ A No. 36620
of 2008 decided on 24.04.2015

(28) N. Ram vs Union of India and
others; 2017 (11) ADJ 300 (DB)

(29) Rahman Bakhsh Mansoori vs
Union of India and another; 2017 Law
Suit (ALL) 1182

(30) S.K. Dua vs State of Haryana
and another; 2008 (1) Supreme 95

18. Placing reliance upon the
aforesaid authorities, it has been argued
that once violation of principles of Natural
Justice
at
different
stages
of
the
departmental
proceedings
is
well
established, punishment order vitiates in
law. It has further been argued in the light
of ratio laid down that once the enquiry
report reads in favour of the delinquent
employee, either wholly or in part, but the
Disciplinary Authority proceeds to take a
view different from the one taken by the
Enquiry Officer, while passing the final
order, it is the duty of the Disciplinary
Authority to record cogent reasoning as to
why it has taken a different view in the
matter
and
the
punishment
orders
impugned in the present writ petition suffer
from the said error, which is apparent on
the face of the record. It has further been
argued that once the punishment orders are
held to be illegal, the petitioner would be
entitled to be reinstated in his services with
all consequential benefits. However, Shri
Singh submits that since the petitioner has
already crossed the age of superannuation
long back, though his actual reinstatement
on the post is not possible, he may be
awarded financial benefits setting aside the
termination order which the petitioner
would
have
been
entitled,
had
the
punishment order not been passed.

19. Shri O.P. Singh has also
emphasized upon the aspect that the
Disciplinary Authority has recorded that the
petitioner is habitual of defrauding the
Bank by dishonesty for his own personal
gains and that the said opinion formed by
the Authority is based upon the punishment
order
passed
earlier,
whereby
four
increments had been stopped. He submits
that the said order of stoppage of
increments formed subject matter of Writ A
No. 14246 of 1984 (Ramesh Chandra
Pandey vs Union of India & others), which
was allowed by this Court by an order
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 30.03.2018 and the petitioner was
found entitled to benefits including 50% of
the arrears of salary.

20. Per contra, Shri Abhishek Tandon,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner
was found indulged in activities contrary to
the financial interest of the Bank as well as
customers and the Disciplinary Authority,
time and again, after conducting thorough
analysis of the material before it, rightly
awarded punishment, inasmuch as, it is
well settled that in banking services
slightest
financial
embezzlement
or
misappropriation made by any employee of
the Bank is sufficient to award major
penalty. Insofar as various proceedings held
before this Court as argued by Shri O.P.
Singh, the submission of Shri Abhishek
Tandon is that though it is true that the
initial punishment orders were set aside on
15.09.1999, intervention was made on the
ground that there was some violation of
principles of Natural Justice at the time
when the Disciplinary Authority was
proceeding to take a view different from
the opinion formed by the Enquiry Officer.
He further submits that insofar as second
round of litigation covered by Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 46839 of 2002 is
concerned, though the punishment order
was set aside by this Court, despite making
certain observations in the order dated
21.08.2006, this Court made it clear that
observations made in the order would not
have any binding effect on the Disciplinary
Authority or in case of appeal, upon the
Appellate Authority and that they would
reconsider the matter afresh in the same
manner. Shri Tandon further argues that
though in the impugned punishment order
dated 20.12.2006, inflicting an earlier
penalty of stoppage of four increments has
been referred to by the Disciplinary
Authority and it has been observed that the
petitioner is habitual of defrauding the
Bank by dishonesty for his own personal
gains, this was not the only reason recorded
by the Disciplinary Authority, but was only
a passing observation and, therefore, the
petitioner cannot get advantage merely
because learned Single Judge allowed Writ
A No. 14246 of 1984 by order dated
30.03.2018 setting aside the punishment
order of stoppage of four increments. He
further emphasises that even otherwise, the
judgment of learned Single Judge dated
30.03.2018 was set aside by the Division
Bench of this Court by allowing Special
Appeal No. 117 of 2019 (The Central Bank
of India and 2 others vs Ramesh Chandra
Pandey and 3 others) by order dated
13.02.2019 and apart from setting aside the
order of learned Single Judge, the writ
petition was also dismissed. It is further
contended that against the order of Special
Appellate Court dated 13.02.2019, though a
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).
22415 of 2019 (Rameseh Chandra Pandey
vs Central Bank of India & others) was
filed by the petitioner, there is no interim
order passed by the Apex Court and, hence,
insofar as the stoppage of four increments
is concerned, the said punishment has also
attained finality and mere pendency of
Special Leave Petition before the Supreme
Court would confer no benefit upon the
petitioner.

21. Regarding the principle of finality
attached to an adjudication, Shri Abhishek
Tandon, learned counsel for the Bank, has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of S. Ramachandra
Rao vs S. Nagabhushana Rao and others,
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1460,
which deals with the principle of res
judicata. He has also placed reliance upon
another judgement of Supreme Court in the
8 All. Ramesh Chandra Pandey Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.
981
case of Tapan Kumar Mondal vs Smt.
Suprava Mondal & others, reported in
2018 SCC Online Cal 2312, to emphasis
that the order of remand passed by this
Court was limited to the extent of providing
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and,
hence, the petitioner cannot get any
advantage out of any order passed by this
Court while allowing various writ petitions
particularly when it was left open for the
Disciplinary Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority to take an independent
decision without being influenced by the
observations recorded in the order passed
by the writ court.

22. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, I find that though the
Enquiry Officer, in his report dated
31.03.1993, had recorded that the charge
No. 1 is not proved; the charge No. 2 is
proved upto the extent that C.S.O. has
altered the entry of Rs. 800/- without
verification etc. but he was not found guilty
of withdrawing Rs. 800/- in fraudulent way,
thus, this part of the charge is not proved;
the charge is proved upto the extent that
C.S.O. has posted the voucher/cheque in
wrong account but mala fide intention not
proved; the fact remains that C.S.O. was
not having power to pass his own
conveyance bill thus he is found guilty of
passing his own conveyance bill without
any power, but other part of the charge that
he derived undue pecuniary benefit could
not be proved; the C.S.O. not been found
guilty for abusing his official position, the
Disciplinary Authority had recorded cogent
reasoning to take a different view after
analysing the entire material on record,
which formed part of the record of enquiry
proceedings. Although the said order was
set aside by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 46839 of 2002, once the matter
was remanded for the purposes of taking an
independent
decision
without
being
influenced by the observations recorded in
the
order
dated
21.08.2006,
the
Disciplinary Authority again analysed five
charges levelled against the petitioner and
found
that
he
was
guilty
of
misappropriating the credit entry of Rs.
800/- of T.L. account in the name of Radha
Krishna and others and withdrew it
fraudulently. The Disciplinary Authority
also recorded that the petitioner credited
Rs.11000/- on 13.11.1990, which was
deposited by M/s Patna Pharmacy for credit
of their overdraft cheque account and to
cover up the same, he posted cheque for
Rs. 6831/- issued by M/s Patna Pharmacy
for issuance of demand draft in his personal
overdraft account on 13.11.1990. It was
further recorded that the petitioner abused
his official position by taking payment of
medical aid for 1991 without having
sanction from the Competent Authority. It
is further recorded that the petitioner
himself utilized the bank funds some way
or the other for his own benefit, he acted in
a manner to benefit himself by ignoring
Rules and Regulations as well as service
condition of the Bank and that the Enquiry
Officer while submitting the report had not
gone into the details of conduct of the
petitioner, which was apparent on record.

23. I also find that insofar as
punishment in the nature of stoppage of
four increments and its effect is concerned,
it was only a sweeping observation made
by the Disciplinary Authority in the order
dated 20.12.2006 and the punishment order
was passed considering the entire facts and
circumstances and not merely because in
the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority,
the petitioner was habitual of defrauding
the Bank by dishonesty for his own
personal gains in view of the previous
punishment.
Moreover,
as
already
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
discussed, though the punishment order of
stoppage of four increments was set aside
by the learned Single Judge of this Court,
the said judgement was reversed and the
writ petition was dismissed by the Division
Bench while allowing Special Appeal filed
by the Bank and the said order has neither
been stayed nor has it been set aside by the
Apex Court, though the Special Leave
Petition against the same may be pending.

24. The Supreme Court has time and
again emphasized the importance of
financial probity in Bank Services. It is an
inbuilt requirement for the functioning of
the banking system. The officers and
employees of bank act as trustee of the
people's faith and confidence in the
banking system and if the officer/employee
commits misconduct and if it is found that
for his personal gain, he has acted against
the interest of the depositor, he must be
dealt with iron hands and does not deserve
to be dealt with any sympathy.

25. In State Bank of India Vs.
Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212,
the Supreme Court has taken the similar
view by observing that a bank officer is
required to exercise higher standards of
honesty and integrity. He deals with the
money of the depositors and the customers.
Every officer/employee of the bank is
required to take all possible steps to protect
the interests of the bank and to discharge
his duties with utmost integrity, honesty,
devotion and diligence and to do nothing
which is unbecoming of a bank officer.
Good
conduct
and
discipline
are
inseparable from the functioning of every
officer/employee of the bank. The very
discipline
of
an
organisation
more
particularly a bank is dependent upon each
of its officers and officers acting and
operating within their allotted sphere.
Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a
breach of discipline and is a misconduct. It
is for this reason that when a bank officer
commits misconduct, as in the present case,
for his personal ends and against the
interest of the bank and the depositors, he
must be dealt with iron hands and he does
not deserve to be dealt with leniently.

26. In the case of Chairman and
Managing Director, United Commercial
Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364 a
submission was made before the Supreme
Court that on account of misconduct of the
employee, the bank did not suffer any loss.
The said submission was rejected by the
Supreme Court and it was held that the
conduct and discipline are unseparable
from the functioning of the bank employee.

27. Reference in this regard on
identical lines can also be made to
judgments of this Court in the case of
Tribhuwan Nath Mishra Vs. Committee of
Management of Allahabad Dist. Coop.
Bank Ltd. And Others, reported in 2007
(3) ADJ 220, decision of Supreme Court in
the case of Kailash Nath Gupta vs Enquiry
Officer, R.K. (Rai), Allahabad Bank and
Others, reported in JT 2003 (3) SC 322 and
in the case of Ram Prasad Gupta vs
Allahabad Bank and another reported in
2004 (1) AWC 697.

28. Considering the entire material on
record as placed before this Court, having
heard the learned counsel for the parties
and also the petitioner in person and having
scrutinized the law referred to hereinabove, I find that punishment awarded to
the petitioner was just and proper and does
not call for any interference by this Court.

29. The writ petition fails and is,
accordingly,
dismissed.
8 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Krishna Gopal & Anr.
983
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 983
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.08.2023

BEFORE

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

Writ-A No. 19467 of 2021

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Krishna Gopal & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shikhar Anand, Karunanidhi Yadav, Raj Bahadur
Singh Yadav

A. Service Law - UP Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1991 - Rule 14 (1) - Disciplinary
proceedings - Dismissal from service -
Charge of absent from duty without
permission
-
Defence
of
medical
treatment was taken - Tribunal quashed
the order of dismissal on the ground
that it was breach of principle of natural
justice;
no
personal
hearing
was
afforded
during
the
course
of
preliminary enquiry; no charge-sheet
was properly served; etc. etc. - Validity
challenged by the St. - Held, the
Tribunal ought to have remitted the case
concerned to the Disciplinary Authority
to conduct the inquiry from the point
that it stood vitiated and to conclude the
same after furnishing the charge-sheet
to the delinquent employee and to give
opportunity to the delinquent to submit
his comments on the charge-sheet.
(Para 22 and 25)
Writ petition partly allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Raj Kumar Mehrotra Vs Government of Bihar
& ors.; 2006 SCC (L&S) 679
2. U.O.I. Vs Mohan Lal Kapoor; (1973) 2 SCC
836
3. Kranti Association (P) Ltd. Vs Masood Ahmad
Khan & ors.; (2010) 9 SCC 510
4. G. Valli Kumar Vs Andhra Education Society;
2010 (2) SCC 947
5. Ram Chandra Vs U.O.I. & ors.; 1986 (53)
F.L.R. 1991 (SC)
6. Krishna Kant B. Parmar Vs U.O.I. & ors.;
(2012) 3 SCC 178
7. D.K. Yadav Vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd.; 1993
(3) SCC 259
8. Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. & anr. Vs
Surendra; 2008 AIR SCW 5446
9. Managing Director, ECIL Vs B. Karunakaran;
1994 SCC Suppl (2) 391
10. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Manmohan Nath Sinha
& anr.; (2010) 8 SCC 310
11. Karushnakant B. Parmar Vs U.O.I. & anr.;
(2012) 3 SCC 178
12. St. of Uttaranchal Vs Kharak Singh; (2008) 8
SCC 236
13.
Chairman-cum-Managing
Director,
Coal
India Limited & anr. Vs Mukul Kumar Choudhuri
& ors.; (2009) 15 SCC 620
14. Nirmala J. Jhala Vs St. of Guj.; (2013) 4 SCC
301
15. St. of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs Rajit Singh;
2022 SCC Online SC 341
16. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of
India & ors. Vs A. Masilamani; (2013) 6 SCC 530
(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

 A. INTRODUCTION

(1) This writ petition has been filed by
the State authorities, questioning the
judgment and order dated 09.03.2021
passed by the State Public Services
Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to