# Renu Chaurasiya v. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1313
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-19
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 5545 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/renu-chaurasiya-v-punjab-sind-bank-anr-50035
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Law-
Order
inflicting
major
punishment upon the petitioner-as well as
appellate order-challenged- transaction of
funds from her account- much higher than
salary-
misconduct-
Regulations
3(1),
3(3), and Regulation 20(4) read with
Regulation 24 of the Punjab and Sindh
Bank
Officers
Employees
(Conduct)
Regulations,
1981-charge
against
the
petitioner is not specific and vague in
nature- no violation of Regulation 20(4)-
appellate order does not deal with the
submissions
of
the
petitioner-order
passed in cavalier manner- impugned
order held to be unsustainable- petition
allowed. (Paras 20 to 23)
HELD:
On the analysis of the proceedings, initiated and
culminated, against the petitioner leading to the
passing of the impugned orders of punishment,
the same do not in any way demonstrate any
violation of Regulation 20(4) or for that matter
violation of Regulation 3(1) and Regulation 3(3)
or Regulation 24 of the Employees Regulations.
The proceedings are further bad in law in as
much as nowhere did the petitioner ever admit
the guilt and, thus, it was incumbent upon the
disciplinary authority to record its findings on
each such charge in terms of Regulation 4 of
the Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1981 read
with Regulation 8 of the 1981. For all the
reasons recorded above, the impugned orders
punishing the petitioner with a major penalty,
are clearly unsustainable and are liable to be
quashed. The impugned orders dated 11.2.2022
and 8.8.2022 are quashed. I am not remanding
the matter as the charges levelled against the
petitioner are as vague as they can be and
subjecting the petitioner to give a reply to such
vague charges would be further embarrassing
the petitioner. (Para 22)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.Ramesh Mohan Shukla Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
reported 2015(7) ADJ 722 (DB)

## Text

4 All. Renu Chaurasiya Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
1313
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1313
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-A No. 5545 of 2022

Renu Chaurasiya ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Praveen Kumar Singh, Avinash Chandra,
Manish Vaish, Prashant Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Taranjeet Singh Makker, Sharad Kumar
Shukla

Service
Law-
Order
inflicting
major
punishment upon the petitioner-as well as
appellate order-challenged- transaction of
funds from her account- much higher than
salary-
misconduct-
Regulations
3(1),
3(3), and Regulation 20(4) read with
Regulation 24 of the Punjab and Sindh
Bank
Officers
Employees
(Conduct)
Regulations,
1981-charge
against
the
petitioner is not specific and vague in
nature- no violation of Regulation 20(4)-
appellate order does not deal with the
submissions
of
the
petitioner-order
passed in cavalier manner- impugned
order held to be unsustainable- petition
allowed. (Paras 20 to 23)
HELD:
On the analysis of the proceedings, initiated and
culminated, against the petitioner leading to the
passing of the impugned orders of punishment,
the same do not in any way demonstrate any
violation of Regulation 20(4) or for that matter
violation of Regulation 3(1) and Regulation 3(3)
or Regulation 24 of the Employees Regulations.
The proceedings are further bad in law in as
much as nowhere did the petitioner ever admit
the guilt and, thus, it was incumbent upon the
disciplinary authority to record its findings on
each such charge in terms of Regulation 4 of
the Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1981 read
with Regulation 8 of the 1981. For all the
reasons recorded above, the impugned orders
punishing the petitioner with a major penalty,
are clearly unsustainable and are liable to be
quashed. The impugned orders dated 11.2.2022
and 8.8.2022 are quashed. I am not remanding
the matter as the charges levelled against the
petitioner are as vague as they can be and
subjecting the petitioner to give a reply to such
vague charges would be further embarrassing
the petitioner. (Para 22)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.Ramesh Mohan Shukla Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
reported 2015(7) ADJ 722 (DB)

2. Mahesh Narayan Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
reported in 2011 (5) ADJ 177

3. St. of U.P. & ors.Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772

4.Civil Appeal No. 8071 of 2014 in re: St. of
Karnataka Vs M Gangaraj

5. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs U.O.I.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed
by the petitioner challenging the order
dated
11.2.2022
whereby
a
major
punishment
was
inflicted
upon
the
petitioner as well as the appellate order
dated 8.8.2022 whereby the departmental
appeal preferred by the petitioner was
dismissed.

3. The brief facts that emerge are that
the petitioner was employed as an officer
1314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with the respondent-bank. On 14.11.2019,
the petitioner was called upon to explain to
tender an explanation in respect of the
transactions in the statement of account of
the petitioner for the period 2015 to 2019.
The petitioner submitted a reply to the said
explanation vide a letter dated 3.12.2019
stating that the father of the petitioner was
suffering a paralytic attack and was on bed
since 2009 and on account of medical and
family exigencies certain amounts were
borrowed from the family members.

4. It is argued, that after the reply was
submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner
was served with a show cause notice on
10.2.2021 wherein, it was alleged against
the petitioner that the petitioner had made
huge transactions of funds regularly in and
from her account which are much higher
than her salary while working as an officer
for the period from 11.8.2015 to 23.1.2019
which would constitute a misconduct in
terms of Regulation 3 (1), Regulation 3 (3)
and Regulation 20 (4) read with Regulation
24 of the Punjab and Sindh Bank Officers
Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1981
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'1981
Regulations').
Along
with
the
said
chargesheet, the statement of account of the
petitioner containing the transactions was
appended as the proposed document to be
relied upon to substantiate the charges. The
single charge leveled against the petitioner
is as under:-

"Ms Renu Chaurasiya (PF Code:
R16432), Officer is charged for Major
Penalty Proceedings under Regulation 6 of
the Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees'
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981
(as amended time to time) for making huge
transactions of funds regularly in and from
her accounts much higher than her salary
income while working as Officer at
branches Rajajipuram Lucknow (L0779)
from 11.8.2015 to 20.09.2015, Indra Nagar
Lucknow (L0802) from 21.09.2015 to
22.01.2019 & Gomti Nagar Lucknow
(L0917) from 23.01.2019 to till date under
Lucknow zone as per articles of charges
(ANNEXURE-I) based upon Statement of
Allegations (ANNEXURE-II). A list of
documents by which article of charges are
proposed to be substantiated is also
enclosed as per ANNEXURE III."

5.

The
petitioner
moved
an
application dated 8.3.2021 stating that the
chargesheet was vague and lacks clarity
and the chargesheet is not accompanied by
the list of documents and the list of
witnesses and prayed that the relied upon
documents be supplied so as to enable the
petitioner to give a proper reply.

6. In response to the said letter, the
respondent-bank gave a reply on 31.3.2021
stating that complete set of documents as
mentioned in the list of documents
(Annexure No.4) (wrongly referred as
Annexure No.4 and appears to be Annexure
No.3) in the chargesheet dated 10.2.2021. It
was denied that at that stage no list of
witnesses was annexed and, thus, a plea
taken was found to be unfounded.

7. The petitioner once again wrote a
letter stating that the charges are vague and
the petitioner is unable to understand the
charges. As the petitioner did not submit
any reply, in fact, took a ground that the
petitioner was being victimised for no fault
of hers, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to
inquire into the allegations.

8. The Inquiry Officer submitted his
findings on 3.1.2022 recording that on the
basis of documents marked as Management
Exhibit-1 to Management Exhibit 10311,
4 All. Renu Chaurasiya Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
1315
the
allegations
with
regard
financial
transactions as evidenced in the statement
of account were true. With regard to each
transaction, the Inquiry Officer recorded
that the amount was deposited in her
account and as the chargesheeted officer,
the petitioner herein did not give any
justification/reason or the source of cash so
deposited in her account, he proceeded to
record
that
the
transaction
remained
unexplained by the chargesheeted officer.
A similar finding was recorded in respect
of
each
financial
transaction
which
appeared in the statement of account of the
petitioner. After recording the same, the
Inquiry Officer recorded that on the perusal
of management exhibits, it was clear that
the transactions in various accounts of the
petitioner are much higher than the salary
income receipt of the petitioner. It further
records that from the assets and liability
statement
of
the
C.S.O.
for
the
corresponding period do not show any
other sources which can justify the
unreasonably high transactions in her
account. It further records that the C.S.O.
has not mentioned any details pertaining to
the said transaction in her assets and
liability statements of the relevant papers
and after recording the same, held that the
allegation no.1 is proved in totality.

9. The said inquiry report was
forwarded to the disciplinary authority, on
receiving the said report the disciplinary
authority issued a show cause notice dated
19.1.2022 calling upon the petitioner to
submit a written comment on the findings
of the Inquiry Authority. In reply to the
same, the petitioner sent a reply on
27.1.2022 taking a ground that the
petitioner was unable to understand the
charge which was framed against the
petitioner, she also took a ground that the
relied upon document and the list of
witnesses were never provided to the
petitioner as a result whereof the petitioner
could not understand the charges and, thus,
the petitioner was unable to answer. The
petitioner also took a ground that the
transactions
referred
to
were
the
transactions in between the petitioner and
her family members after the said reply was
filed, the disciplinary authority proceeded
to pass an order on 11.2.2022 wherein, the
report
of
the
Inquiry
Officer
was
considered.
The
disciplinary
authority
consider the findings recorded by the
Inquiry
Officer
in
respect
of
each
transaction and recorded that the petitioner
had been making huge transactions of
funds through the various accounts and
despite giving opportunities to explain, the
petitioner was reluctant and has not
furnished any justification/reason in that
regard. It further recorded that the salary
income receipt by the petitioner from the
bank does not commensurate with the
amount involved in the corresponding
period and went ahead to record that the
petitioner was guilty of the misconduct as
per the regulations of 1981 specially
Regulation 3 (1), Regulation 3 (3) and
Regulation 20 (4) read with Regulation 24
and after holding the petitioner guilty
proceeded to award major punishment of
reduction of four increments to a lower
stage in time scale of pay for a period of 2
years. It further ordered that she will not
earn increment of pay during the period of
such reduction and on expiry of this period
the reduction will have the effect of
postponing the future increments of her
pay, the said punishment was awarded
under Regulation 4 (F) of the Discipline
and Appeal Regulations 1981 as amended.

10. Challenging the said order of
punishment awarded to the petitioner, the
petitioner filed a comprehensive appeal
1316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before the appellate authority. In the said
appeal, the petitioner denied the allegation
and pleaded that the petitioner could not be
held guilty of misconduct. It was submitted
that all the transactions referred to were in
between the petitioner and her family
members and details with regard to each
deposit was specifically mentioned in
paragraph 14 of the appeal. The petitioner
also took other grounds in the appeal
preferred by the petitioner. The appellate
authority passed an order dated 8.8.2022
dismissing the appeal. Both the said orders
are impugned in the present writ petition.

11. Sri Prashant Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner argues
that in terms of the regulations under which
the petitioner was working, the petitioner
was under obligation to disclose the assets
and liabilities in the prescribed form along
with the format annexed to the said form,
one such format is contained in Annexure
No.13 to the writ petition. In the light of
said submission, it is argued that it was
incumbent upon the petitioner to disclose
the carry home salary of the petitioner and
apart from that, the petitioner was obliged
to disclose details such as rent, receipt,
interest/dividend, other receipts such as
disposal of movable/immovable assets,
gifts,
encashment
of
NSE,
NSS/PPF/FDRs/LIC, mutual fund, etc., and
while filling the said form the petitioner
had disclosed 'NIL'. The petitioner was also
under an obligation to disclose the details
of immovable properties and once again the
petitioner disclosed the same as NIL.

12. The counsel for the petitioner
draws my attention to the proceedings
before the Inquiry Officer wherein the
petitioner had made a specific statement
that in terms of Regulation 20 (4) of the
1981 Regulation, it was an obligation of the
petitioner to disclose every transaction
'concerning movable property' owned or
held by the petitioner, if the value of such
properties exceeds Rs. 25,000/- and the
petitioner never owned any movable
property of Rs. 25,000/- or more in
between the financial year 2016 and 2020.
He draws my attention to that Regulation
3(1), 3(3) and 20 (4) read with Regulation
24 are quoted hereinbelow:-

"Regulation 3(1):

Every officer employee shall, at
all times take all possible steps to ensure
and protect the ineterests of the bank and
discharge his duties with utmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence and do
nothing which is unbecoming of an officer
employee.

Regulation 3(3):

No officer employee shall, in the
performance of his official duties or in the
exercise of powers conferred on him, act
otherwise than in his best judgement except
when he is acting under the direction of his
official superior.

Provided
wherever
such
directions are oral in nature the same shall
be confirmed in writing by his superior
official.

Regulation 20(4):

Every officer employee shall
report to the Competent authority every
transaction concerning movable property
owned or held by him either in his own
name or in the name of a member of his
family if the value of such a property
exceeds Rs. 25,000/-.

Provided
that
the
previous
sanction of the competent authority shall be
obtained if any such transaction is -

(a) With a person having official
dealings with the officer employee or

(b) Otherwise than through a
regular or reputed dealer.
4 All. Renu Chaurasiya Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
1317

Regulation 24:

A breach of any of the provisions
of these regulations shall be deemed to
constitute misconduct punishable under the
Punjab & Sindh Bank Officer Employees'
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981."

13. The counsel for the petitioner
argues that in terms of the mandate of
Regulation 20 (4), the employee is liable to
report every transaction concerning to
movable property owned or held by him
either in his own name or in the name of a
member of his family if the value of the
property exceeds Rs. 25,000/-. He argues
that in the entire chargesheet there is no
allegation of the petitioner failing to make a
disclosure in respect of a movable property
belonging to the petitioner or her family
member. He further argues that in the form
which was required to be filled, it was
specifically stated that the statement need
not include the transactions which have
been entered into by the spouse or any
other member of the family of the officer
employee out of his own funds including
stridhan, gifts, inheritance etc. as distinct
from the funds of the officer employee. He
argues that that the notes appended to the
form which are required to be filled itself
made it mandatory that all the transactions
both purchase and sales of Rs. 5,000/- or
more are required to be reported and in fact
the investment above Rs. 25,000/- are
required to be reported as per Annexure
No.1. The notes as appended to the form
which is required to be filled by the officer
concerned which is being reproduced herein-below:-

"The officers are required to
intimate only the changes during the year,
wherever, a particular set has already been
reported in any of the previous years. All
columns are required to be filled in and the
details, wherever required, may be given by
way of separate Annexure. Reference to the
sanctions obtained from the competent
authority shall be made against the relative
transaction.

All
the
transactions,
both
purchases and sales, of '5000/- or more are
required to be reported. So far as
investment
in
shares,
securities,
debentures, mutual fund schemes etc. is
concerned, even transactions of values of
less than '5000/- are required to be
reported. However, if the total transactions
in such investments exceed 25000/- during
the financial year, intimation is required to
be given as per Annexure-I.

The statement need not include
transactions which have been entered into
by the spouse or any other member of the
family of the officer employee out of his/her
own
funds
including
stridhan,
gifts,
inheritance etc. as distinct from the funds
of the officer employee.

I hereby declare that I have read
and understood the Regulation 14 to 20 of
the PSB Officer Employees' Conduct
Regulations-1981 and the particulars in the
statement furnished here-in-above are in
conformity with the said regulations and
are complete and correct as of date and to
the of my knowledge and belief."

14. In the light of said submission, he
argues that the chargesheet never alleged
that the petitioner did not make any true
disclosures as are required to be made and
in terms of Regulation 20 (4), transactions
other than the one referred to in the said
regulation are not required to be disclosed
and as such the petitioner could not be held
guilty on that account. He next argues that
in any event, the petitioner never admitted
the guilt and thus, it was incumbent upon
the bank in terms of the Discipline and
Appeal Regulations to establish the charges
1318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
levelled based upon documentary or oral
evidence. In the present case, it is argued
that that the charge has been held to be
proved against the petitioner solely based
upon the statement of account and without
there being any other evidence to establish
the violation of Regulation 20 (4). He
further argues that in the appeal, all the
transactions in the statement of account of
the petitioner were duly explained and it
was the duty of the appellate authority to
have recorded a finding in respect of the
grounds taken in the appeal whereas the
appellate order concludes the proceedings
without recording any finding in respect of
the grounds as raised by the petitioner.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner
lastly draws my attention to the Discipline
and Appeal Rules which provide for the
manner in which the proceedings are to be
concluded in the event of a major penalty
being imposed which is contained in
Regulation 6. He draws my attention to the
Regulation 6 which prescribes that in the
event the officer does not accept the guilt, it
is incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to
record a finding of guilt in respect of each
charge on the basis of the evidence. He also
draws my attention to the Employees
Conduct
Regulations
specifically
Regulation 3 (1), 3 (3), 20 (4) and
Regulation
24
which
are
quoted
hereinabove to argue that, even if for the
sake of arguments, all the allegations
levelled are taken to be correct, there is no
material to establish that there was
violation of Regulation 20 (4) as the
disclosure/reporting relate only in respect
of 'transactions of movable property' which
exceed Rs. 25,000/-.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on the revision and
judgement of this Court in the case of
Ramesh Mohan Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
and others reported 2015(7) ADJ 722 (DB)
in particular places reliance on paragraph 4
of the said judgement which holds that
irrespective of the defense, the burden of
proving the charge is on the Inquiry
Officer. He further places reliance on the
judgement of this Court in the case of
Mahesh Narayan Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
and others reported in 2011 (5) ADJ 177
which is also to the same effect that the
burden of proving the charge is on the
employer. He next places reliance on the
judgement of the Supreme Court in the case
of Union of India Vs. Gyan Chand
Chattar reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78
where he places reliance on paragraph 35 to
argue that the statutory rules are to the
followed strictly and the charges should be
specific and no inquiry can be sustained on
vague charges and that every act or
omission on the part of the delinquent
cannot constitute a misconduct, paragraph
35 is quoted here-in-below:-

"In view of the above, law can be
summarised that an enquiry is to be
conducted against any person giving strict
adherence to the statutory provisions and
principles of natural justice. The charges
should be specific, definite and giving
details of the incident which formed the
basis of charges. No enquiry can be
sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to
be conducted fairly, objectively and not
subjectively.
Finding
should
not
be
perverse or unreasonable, nor the same
should be based on conjectures and
surmises. There is a distinction in proof
and suspicion. Every act or omission on the
part of the delinquent cannot be a
misconduct. The authority must record
reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in
the context of the statute defining the
misconduct."
4 All. Renu Chaurasiya Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
1319

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next places reliance on the judgement of
the Supreme Court in the case of State of
U.P. and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 wherein the
manner of conducting the inquiry was laid
down emphasis by the Supreme Court,
paragraph 27 to 30 are quoted here-inbelow:-

"A bare perusal of the aforesaid
sub-rule shows that when the respondent
had failed to submit the explanation to the
charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the
inquiry officer to fix a date for his
appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a
case when the government servant despite
notice of the date fixed failed to appear that
the inquiry officer can proceed with the
inquiry
ex-parte.
Even
in
such
circumstances it is incumbent on the
inquiry officer to record the statement of
witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet.
Since the government servant is absent, he
would clearly lose the benefit of crossexamination
of
the
witnesses.
But
nonetheless in order to establish the
charges the Department is required to
produce the necessary evidence before the
inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the
charge that the inquiry officer has acted as
a prosecutor as well as a judge.

An inquiry officer acting in a
quasi-judicial authority is in the position of
an independent adjudicator. He is not
supposed to be a representative of the
department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to
examine the evidence presented by the
Department, even in the absence of the
delinquent official to see as to whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold
that the charges are proved. In the present
case the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined the documents have not been
proved, and could not have been taken into
consideration to conclude that the charges
have been proved against the respondents.

Apart from the above, by virtue of
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India
the departmental enquiry had to be
conducted in accordance with the rules of
natural justice. It is a basic requirement of
the rules of natural justice that an
employee
be
given
a
reasonable
opportunity
of
being
heard
in
any
proceedings which may culminate in
punishment
being
imposed
on
the
employee.

When a departmental enquiry is
conducted against the government servant
it cannot be treated as a casual exercise.
The enquiry proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry
officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules
of natural justice are required to be
observed to ensure not only that justice is
done but is manifestly seen to be done. The
object of rules of natural justice is to
ensure that a government servant is treated
fairly in proceedings which may culminate
in imposition of punishment including
dismissal/removal from service."

18.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-bank,
on
the
other
hand,
defends the order by arguing that the
petitioner never filed any objection to the
chargesheet, the petitioner never gave any
statement with regard to such huge
financial transactions which are reflected in
the statement of account and, thus, the
petitioner failed to raise the objections at
the time when they were required to be
raised. It is argued that an officer who is
drawing a salary of Rs. 4 lakhs and all, has
incoming transactions in excess of 70 lakhs
in her account and outgoing transactions of
Rs. 40 lakhs in her account, itself
1320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
demonstrates
that
the
petitioner
was
receiving such huge amounts without
making the necessary disclosures to the
bank which according to the counsel for the
respondent-bank is a clear violation of the
Regulation of 1981. He further argues that
in terms of the disclosures that were
required to be made by all the officers, the
details are required to be stated. He further
argues that the emphasis of the petitioner
that the details as are specified in the form
pertaining to the gifts etc. are to be
disclosed is worthy of rejection as the said
heads are only examples and does not
contain the exhaustive disclosures which
are required to be made. He further argues
that the Inquiry Officer after giving
adequate opportunity to the petitioner
recorded the findings of guilt in respect of
the charge as framed against the petitioner
and this Court in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 cannot sit over the said
order as an appellate authority. He relies
upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in
the Case of Civil Appeal No. 8071 of 2014
in re: State of Karnataka Vs. M Gangaraj,
therein Hon'ble Supreme Court had the
occasion to consider this act of interference
in disciplinary proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and after
placing reliance on various judgements
including
the
judgements
of
B.C.
Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, followed
the same and recorded that judicial review
is confined to decision making process. He
lastly argues that the appellate authority in
its findings had recorded that the petitioner
was guilty out of own disclosure of the
huge transactions and it was not required
by the appellate authority to deal with each
and every submission in respect of each
and every transaction in the statement of
account as has been argued by the counsel
for the petitioner. In the light of the said
submission, it is argued that the petition
lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. He
further argues that in terms of the mandates
Regulation 20 (4), it was incumbent upon
the officer to disclose all the financial
transactions as reflected in the statement of
account which the petitioner had not done
and in any case, should have come out
clean in respect of each transaction, while
filing the reply to the chargesheet which the
petitioner has failed to do and has not even
disclosed the same during the course of the
inquiry.

19. In rejoinder, the counsel for the
petitioner argues that before issuance of
chargesheet, a notice was served on the
petitioner and the petitioner, in reply to the
said notice had specifically given the
details in respect of the transactions in the
statement of the account of the petitioner.

20. Considering the statement made at
the bar and as recorded above, this Court is
to consider as to whether the charge
levelled against the petitioner is contrary to
the mandate of Regulation 3(1), Regulation
3(3), Regulation 20(4) and Regulation 24
of the Employees Conduct Regulations
1981. The sole charge against the petitioner
was of making huge transactions of funds
regularly in and from her accounts much
more than her salary income while working
as an officer. In terms of the Regulation
20(4), every officer employee is bound to
report to the competent authority for every
transaction concerning to movable property
owned or held by him/her either in his own
name or in the name of members of his
family if the value of the property exceeds
Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, it is clear that the
Regulation 20(4) is confined to disclosure
of
transactions
concerning
movable
property owned or held by him/her, if the
value of the property exceeds Rs. 25,000/-,
the regulation does not prescribe for
4 All. Renu Chaurasiya Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
1321
disclosure of all the financial transactions
taking place in the account of the officer
concerned. This is also fortified by the
forms prescribed for filling, by each and
every officer concerned, one such form
requiring the disclosures to be made is
annexed as Annexure No. 13 to the writ
petition, the same is qualified by the notes
which do not provide for disclosure of the
transactions entered into by the spouse or
other members of the family by the officer
employee out of his/her own funds. Thus to
carry home the charge of violation of
Regulation 20(4), it was incombent upon
the petitioner to allege and substantiate that
the transactions made and reflected in the
statement of account of the value exceeding
Rs. 25,000/- and were not in respect of
transactions which have been entered into
by the spouse or in the name of other
member of the family of the officer
employee out of his/her own funds. The
charge levelled against the petitioner only
alleged that huge transactions were made in
the bank accounts which are much higher
than the salary. On a plain reading, the said
charge does not attract any infraction of
Regulation 20(4) of the regulations. In the
absence of any charge to the effect that the
transactions reflected in the statement of
account were in respect of movable
property of the value exceeding Rs.
25,000/- and other than the transactions
which are not bound to be disclosed, there
was no occasion for the petitioner to give
any reply to the said charge as on the face
of it, the charge did not reflect any
violation of Regulation 20(4). Thus, to that
extent, the submission of the counsel for
the petitioner that the charge should be
specific and not vague is bound to be
accepted.

21. In the inquiry report, the Inquiry
Officer
has
gone
through
all
the
transactions and did not record any finding
that they were in respect of transaction
'concerning movable property' of value
exceeding Rs. 25,000/- or that the said
transactions were other than what is
required to be disclosed in the annual
returns filed by the officer concerned. The
disciplinary authority has also failed to
record any finding as to how the
transactions reflected in the statement of
account violated Regulation 20(4). The
appellate order clearly does not deal with
any of the submissions made by the
petitioner, wherein, for the first time the
petitioner has specifically explained each
and every financial transactions that it
happened
in
the
bank
account
to
demonstrate that the same did not relate to
movable property held by the petitioner of
a value exceeding Rs. 25,000/-. The
appellate authority has passed the order in a
casual manner without dealing with the
said averments and, thus, is clearly
unsustainable.

22.

On
the
analysis
of
the
proceedings, initiated and culminated,
against the petitioner leading to the passing
of the impugned orders of punishment, the
same do not in any way demonstrate any
violation of Regulation 20(4) or for that
matter violation of Regulation 3(1) and
Regulation 3(3) or Regulation 24 of the
Employees Regulations. The proceedings
are further bad in law in as much as
nowhere did the petitioner ever admit the
guilt and, thus, it was incombent upon the
disciplinary authority to record its findings
on each such charge in terms of Regulation
4 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations
1981 read with Regulation 8 of the 1981.
For all the reasons recorded above, the
impugned orders punishing the petitioner
with
a
major
penalty,
are
clearly
unsustainable and are liable to be quashed.
1322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The impugned orders dated 11.2.2022 and
8.8.2022 are quashed. I am not remanding
the matter as the charges leveled against the
petitioner are as vague as they can be and
subjecting the petitioner to give a reply to
such vague charges would be further
embarrassing the petitioner.

23. The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs. Consequential benefits
shall follow in favour of petitioner.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1322
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-A No. 7701 of 2021

Union of India & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Nathan Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Sri
Shashi Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Sri Sunil

A.
Service
Law-Order
of
Central
Administrative Tribunal-setting aside the
order retiring the petitioner on 31.03.2019
instead of 20.08.1961-challenged.

B. Change in date of birth was never
communicated
to
the
respondent-no
opportunity of hearing was granted to him
before that-both contentions accepted by
the petitioner in its counter affidavit filed
in Original Application before CAT-date of
birth of respondent corrected unilaterally
sans
intimation-Explanatory
Note
of
Fundamental Rules, 1956- date of birth of
Government Employee can be corrected
within five years of entering service- or
bonafide
mistake-both
defence
not
available to the petitioner in this caseprinciples of natural justice violatedimpugned order upheld-petition dismissed
. (Paras 5 to 11)

HELD:
Considering the above facts, it is the petitioners
who entered the date of birth of the respondent
in his service record as 20.08.1961, at the time
of entering the service of respondent and they
unilaterally corrected the same by mentioning
the date of birth of respondent as 12.03.1959
without giving any opportunity of hearing to
respondent or giving any intimation to him till
2018. Therefore, original application filed by the
respondent before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad was well within time and
duly
maintainable
and
because
of
nonintimation
or
non-granting
opportunity
of
hearing before correction of date of birth of the
respondent, there is a clear violation of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,
therefore, the view taken by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad of setting
aside the impugned order on the ground of
violation of principles of natural justice, as no
opportunity of hearing was given to the
respondent before making correction in his date
of birth and retiring him on 31.03.2019 on the
basis of amended date of birth, cannot be said
to be perverse or erroneous. (Para5)

Even otherwise, as per explanatory note of
Fundamental Rules, 1956 clearly provides that
date of birth of Government employee can be
changed only within five years of entering into
the service or it is clearly established that a
genuine bona fide mistake has occurred and in
the present case, correction was made by the
petitioners in the date of birth of the respondent
after 11 years of entering into service and the
same also cannot be said to be correction of
genuine bona fide mistake. (Para 6)

From the above decisions, it is established
position that application of principles of natural
justice in the decision-making process of the
administrative body having civil consequences
have been upheld. Therefore, rules of natural