# Vinod Kumar Sethi v. UCO Bank & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1946
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-23
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 34539 of 2009
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-kumar-sethi-v-uco-bank-ors-54904
- **Pages:** 24

## Text

_Characters 0–39,863 of 72,427. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39863 for what follows._

1946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3.3.2011 would show that the trial court has not carefully examined the evidence on record relied
upon by prosecution while exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned order
dated 3.3.2011 suffers from grave illegality and impropriety, which calls for interference by this
Court.

Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 is set aside
qua the petitioner nos.3 to 5, whereas in respect of petitioner nos.1 and 2, the petition is dismissed
as infructuous in view of their acquittal recorded on 29.3.2012.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1946
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 34539 of 2009

Vinod Kumar Sethi ...Petitioner
Versus
UCO Bank & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether inquiry was conducted by a Competent Authority or not?
(b) Whether during disciplinary proceeding due procedure was followed or not?
(c) Whether punishment, i.e., removal from Bank service, was contrary to bipartite agreement that petitioner
was denied pension?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - UCO Bank Officers Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976:
Regulation 17 - The Petitioner was working as a Manager at the Ghaziabad Branch of UCO Bank from
August 2000 to 19.07.2004. He was initially suspended on 11.09.2004, following allegations of several acts of
omissions and commissions. A charge sheet with five charges was issued on 18.10.2004. Following a deeper
internal investigation, a fresh, specialized Article of Charge and Statement of Allegations dated 29.03.2005,
was served to the Petitioner, strictly isolating and detailing the "Fake Bank Guarantee" fraud.
The investigation revealed that the Petitioner issued Bank Guarantee No. 28/02 dated 09.11.2002, for Rs.
47.00 Lakhs in favor of U.P. Jal Nigam, NOIDA, on behalf of M/s Bhavya Credits. He bypassed all mandatory
bank guidelines.
The Petitioner later extended the guarantee's validity up to 09.11.2004, via an off-the-record letter on a Rs.
100/- stamp paper. On the strength of this unauthorized document, the private company fraudulently secured
a mobilization advance of Rs. 45.89 Lakhs from U.P. Jal Nigam, which was funneled through their current
account on 12.11.2004. It was also alleged that the Petitioner personally pocketed Rs. 94,000/- given as an
off-market commission by the company's representatives. Parallel to the departmental action, a criminal FIR
was lodged u/Ss. 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC. The Petitioner was arrested and subsequently
released on bail by the High Court on 23.09.2005.
4 All. Vinod Kumar Sethi Vs. UCO Bank & Ors.
1947
B. There was no illegality in the appointment of Enquiry Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has a
right to appoint any person who is or has been a public servant and in present case the Enquiry Authority was
an Ex-Scale-IV Officer of Bank. (Para 25, 26)
C. It is well settled that in a case arising out of disciplinary proceeding, the High Court under
writ jurisdiction has a very limited power to review an order of punishment and it can be
interfered only on limited grounds. (Para 22)
There is no irregularity in the process of disciplinary proceeding. The charges were found proved on
basis of material as well as examination and cross-examination of management witnesses. The reason for
management to have taken 14 months to conclude its case was that, the petitioner has taken various
adjournments and has not appeared on various dates. Effective dates were very few on which management's
case was concluded and thereafter further opportunity of a week was granted to petitioner to present his
defence, if any, which is contrary to his submission that only a week's time was granted to put his defence.
(Para 35)
(ii) Any allegation that documents were not confronted, being contrary to record, cannot be
accepted. The memorandum of charge was submitted to which petitioner submitted his reply. Petitioner has
participated in inquiry. He was granted ample opportunity to cross examine management witnesses. Petitioner
sought adjournments for number of months on medical grounds and despise examination-in-chief was
conducted in his presence, still he failed to cross-examine the management witnesses. He was granted
opportunity to examine documents as directed by this Court and he was confronted with all documents placed
during inquiry. (Para 28, 29, 34, 37, 38)
(iii) It is not a case that conclusion, on very face of it, was wholly arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person can arrive to such conclusion as well as it is not a case of no evidence. On
perusal of the inquiry report as well as the order passed by Disciplinary Authority, it is found that every
argument and objections were considered and only thereafter it was held that both charges were found
proved. (Para 30)
D. Objection on report of handwriting expert - The expert report was part of investigation in
criminal case and the same was though placed on record in disciplinary proceeding but not much
relied on. It was used only for the purpose of corroboration. (Para 32, 33)
E. Clause 6(b) inserted on 10.04.2002 in Bipartite settlement arrived between Indian Bank's
Association - Even in proved gross misconduct as in present case petitioner though can be
removed from service, however, it must be with superannuation benefits. (Para 41, 42)
The appropriate authority of Respondent-Bank has not taken note of clause of bipartite settlement.
Accordingly, without disturbing finding that both charges were found proved and petitioner has committed
gross misconduct, the matter is remitted back only to the extent that a fresh order be passed on nature of
punishment taking note of above referred clause of bipartite settlement as well as UCO Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar
Handa (infra). (Para 43, 44, 45)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Purshottam Lal and others Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1973 SC 1088 (Para 18)
2. UCO Bank and another Vs. Vijay Kumar Handa, 2025 INSC 442 (Para 18)
1948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Ujagar Singh Saini (through LRs) Vs. State Bank of Patiala and others, CWP-16738-1999, decided on
09.01.2026 (Para 18)
4. Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, 2015 (2) SCC 610 (Para 19)
5. Union of India and other Vs. Dalbir Singh, 2021 (11) SCC 321 (Para 23)

List of Acts
UCO Bank Officers Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

List of Keywords: Disciplinary authority, reasonable explanation, FIR, inquiry, review, jurisdiction,
documents, examine, witnesses, bipartite agreement, Indian Bank's Association, handwriting expert, public
servant.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Amit Saxena, Arvind Srivastava, Vatsal Srivastava
For Respondent(s): Adarsh Bhushan, Sanjai Singh, S.C., V.K Srivastava, V.K.Srivastava, Yashwant Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioner, while working as Manager, UCO Bank at Ghaziabad Branch, has allegedly
indulged in several acts of omissions and commissions. Initially an Statement of Allegations and
Articles of Charge dated 18.10.2004 was submitted to petitioner on as many as five charges
including an allegation of a Fake Bank Guarantee of M/s Bhavya Credit and Investment Pvt. Ltd.
for U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, NOIDA and for that petitioner was earlier put under suspension
vide order dated 11.09.2004.

2. Subsequently, on basis of further internal inquiry another Statement of Allegations dated
29.03.2005 was submitted to petitioner which limit the allegation only qua to Fake Bank
Guarantee. For reference the Article of Charge dated 29.03.2005 and Statement of Allegations
dated 29.03.2005, in its entirety, is reproduced hereinafter:

ARTICLES OF CHARGE

Mr. V.K. Seth, PFM No. 17334, while working as Manager at B/o Ghaziabad from
August 2000 to 19.7.2004 had indulged in several acts of omission and commissions. These acts
are set out in the enclosed Statement of Allegations for which he is charged as under:

1. Mr. Sethi failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and
diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer, which is violative of Regulation
3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976 as amended.

2. Mr. Sethi failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect interest of the Bank
which is violative of Regulations 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations
1976 as amended.

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
4 All. Vinod Kumar Sethi Vs. UCO Bank & Ors.
1949

Mr. V.K. Sethi, PFM No. 17334, while working as Manager, Ghaziabad Branch, had
indulged in several acts of omissions and commissions. The allegations are given hereunder: -

1. M/s Bhavya Credits and Investment Pvt. Ltd. a Private Limited Company with its
address B-9/6351 Vasant Kunj, New Delhi having two directors namely Mr. Anshuman Tewari and
Ambrish Tiwari, opened a current account with our Ghaziabad branch on 4.10.2002. A case of
issuance of a fraudulent Bank Guarantee came to the notice of the Bank upon which the matter was
got investigated which confirmed that a Bank Guarantee No. 1/03 for Rs. 57,71,500/- dated 4.4.03
had been issued by Mr. V.K. Sethi without following laid down procedure of the Bank. For this
lapse on the part of Mr. V.K. Sethi, a Charge sheet dated 18.10.2004 has been issued to him.

During the course of investigation of fraudulent Bank Guarantee No. 1/03 the
Investigating Officer came across a credit entry dated 12.11.04 of Rs. 45,89,000/- in the account of
M/s Bhavya Credits and investment Pvt. Ltd. On getting the matter further investigated, it
transpired that this amount had been released by U.P. Jal Nigam, NOIDA to M/s Bhavya Credits
and Investment Pvt. Ltd. as advance on the strength of Bank Guarantee No.28/02 dated 9.11.02 for
Rs.47.00 Lac purportedly issued by B/o Ghaziabad. When the Authorities of U.P. Jal Nigam were
approached regarding the said Bank Guarantee they furnished a photocopy of the Bank Guarantee
No.28/02 to the Investing Officer, which bore one of the signatures of Mr. V.K. Sethi.

Mr. Sethi issued a Bank Guarantee No.28/02 dated 9.11.02 for Rs.47.00 Lac in favour of
U.P. Jal Nigam on behalf of M/s Bhavya Credits and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and signed the Bank
Guarantee as Manager of the Branch whereas the Bank Guarantee should have been signed by the
Senior Manager of the Branch with advance In-charge. Mr. Sethi, deliberately, did not follow any
laid down procedure of the Bank viz. bringing it in the knowledge of the Senior Manager, taking an
application from the party, Counter Guarantee, Margin, Security for the residual value, obtaining
sanction from Regional Office, Bareilly, processing charges and commission entering the
Guarantee in Guarantee Register. Nor did he keep any record in the Branch for issuing the said
Bank Guarantee. Further, Mr. Sethi extended the validity period of this Guarantee up to 9.11.2004
by a letter dated 4.11.2003 signed by him addressed to Project Manager, U.P. Jal Nigam, NOIDA,
written on Stamp Paper of Res.100/-. Mr. Sethi did not keep any record of such extension of Bank
Guarantee in Bank's record. On the basis of this Bank Guarantee, M/s Bhavya Credits and
Investment Pvt. Ltd. managed to secure a payment of Rs.45.89 Lac from U.P. Jal Nigam, NOIDA
which was collected through the account on 12.11.04. In this way, Mr. Sethi, in collusion with the
account holder, extended undue gain to M/s Bhavya Credits and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and loss to
the Bank and tarnished the image of the Bank. Mr. Sethi also exposed the bank to grave risk. Mr.
Sethi has also caused loss to State Government of U.P.

3. Simultaneously a First Information Report was also lodged against petitioner and others
under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and petitioner was arrested also, though he was
granted bail by this Court vide an order dated 23.09.2005.

4. When petitioner has denied allegations and failed to submit any reasonable explanation, the
Disciplinary Authority decided to get an inquiry conducted in this matter and appointed Sri H.P.
1950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Varshney, an Ex-Scale-IV Officer of Bank as an Enquiry Authority and also appointed a Manager
of Branch at Meerut as Presenting Officer.

5. In aforesaid circumstances, an inquiry was initiated and notice was issued to petitioner
(CSOE) as well as Presenting Officer to submit their respective list of documents and witnesses,
however, as specifically noted in inquiry report as well as in the order of Disciplinary Authority,
the CSOE sought various adjournments between 12.04.2006 to 21.09.2006 on medical grounds for
various duration, such as, six weeks, six weeks, six weeks, 10 days and 30 days, therefore, inquiry
got delayed.

6. On one hand petitioner himself was guilty of delaying the inquiry and on another hand he
has approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 72210 of 2005 that inquiry be
expedited. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 15.11.2006 that petitioner cannot ask
for documents which were not in the custody of Bank, though a direction was passed that petitioner
can inspect the documents likely to be relied on during departmental inquiry.

7. It is also on record that petitioner has appointed his Defense Representative (DR), however,
later on he quit and a permission was granted to engage new Defense Representative, however,
despite sufficient time was granted, he did not forward a consent letter of his new Defense
Representative by 08.11.2006.

8. It is also on record that statement of Management Witness-1 (ME-1) was recorded in
presence of CSOE on 13.01.2006, however, cross-examination was adjourned on his request not
once but on four dates, i.e., 14.02.2006, 06.02.2006, 21.03.2006 and 22.03.2006 but he still failed
to cross-examine MW-1.

9. Similarly examination-in-chief of MW-2 was recorded in presence of CSOE on 22.03.2006
and he was asked for cross-examination, however, he again sought adjournment and still failed to
cross-examine on next date, i.e., 20.04.2006 and thereafter he sought adjournment on ground of
medical grounds for about four months. Subsequently also, despite petitioner was granted a further
opportunity, he repeatedly avoided to cross-examine MW-2 and accordingly a decision was taken
to stop opportunity of cross-examination.

10. It is further on record that statement of MW-3 was recorded on 02.11.2006 in presence of
petitioner and he was requested to cross-examine MW-3 also, however, again he sought time and
finally a last opportunity was granted to petitioner to cross-examine MW-3 on 14.11.2006 but again
petitioner failed to cross-examine MW-3 and finally he cross-examined MW-3 on 05.12.2006 and
management presentation was declared closed on same day.

11. On basis of aforesaid description, based on material on record, an allegation that petitioner
was not afforded opportunity to place his case or to cross-examine MW-1 to MW-3 effectively, has
no legal basis since, as referred above, petitioner was granted repeated opportunity to crossexamine management witnesses, however, he failed to cross-examine MW-1 and MW-2 though at
very later stage he cross-examined MW-3.
4 All. Vinod Kumar Sethi Vs. UCO Bank & Ors.
1951

12. The Enquiry Authority submitted report which was forwarded to petitioner by a covering
letter dated 05.02.2007. Copy of inquiry report was not enclosed alongwith this writ petition,
however, was enclosed alongwith the counter affidavit. Said inquiry report is a very detail report
wherein all material including reply of petitioner as well as statements of management witnesses
were discussed. It was also noted that CSOE was granted ample opportunity to place defence
witness, however, has failed to do so though has filed defence documents, which were considered
in inquiry report.

13. The Enquiry Authority after considering all circumstances found both charges to be
proved. A detail assessment of evidence was conducted and finally on basis of a reasoned and
considered conclusion, Statement of Allegations were found to be proved. For reference conclusion
relating to Article of Charges, as mentioned in inquiry report submitted by Enquiry Authority, is
reproduced hereinafter:

IX. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO ARTICLES OF CHARGE:

As mentioned above, the findings of the enquiry show that the matters mentioned in the
Statement of Allegations are proved to be correct.

The two charges in Articles of charge reads as under :

1. Mr. Sethi failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and
diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer, which is violative of Regulation 3
(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.

2. Mr. Sethi failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect interest of the Bank
which is violative of Regulation 3 (1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations,
1976 as amended.

The findings stated above show that :

1. The C.S.O.E. issued the bank guarantee ME-2 and extended its validity by ME-4
unauthorisedly, beyond powers and against the Banks rules/guidelines as contained in ME-12, ME13 & ME-14.

2. The C.S.O.E. neither took any application from M/s BCIPL for issuance of ME-2 and
ME-4, nor did he process the issuance & extension of guarantee as per Bank's rules/ procedures/
guidelines, nor did he place the matter before the higher authorities as per Bank's
guidelines/procedures.

3. The C.S.O.E. did not obtain any margin money and collateral security to secure the
said guarantee ME-2 as per Bank's guidelines.
1952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. The C.S.O.E. neither made any entries in the relevant Bank records nor did he keep
any records in the Bank about the issuance of ME-2, ME-4 and ME-21/2, as per Bank's guidelines,
thereby concealing facts from the Bank authorities.

5. The C.S.O.E. did not obtain counter guarantee from the applicant, nor did he obtain
any margin and collateral security while issuing ME-2. Thereby, he exposed the Bank to risk of
invocation of the guarantee to the extent of Rs.47 Lacs.

6. The C.S.O.E. caused wrongful financial loss to the Bank by not charging and getting
deposited in the Bank, the processing charges and "exchange and commission" which should have
been earned for issuance of the bank guarantee ME-2 as well as extension thereof, as per Bank's
rules.

7. The C.S.O.E. concealed the material facts from his superior officers/Bank with motive
of personal gain, and did not deposit the amount Rs.94,000/- given to him by the representative of
the applicant company towards commission for issuing the bank guarantee ME-2, in the Bank.

8. The C.S.O.E. is responsible for doing other such acts for which the C.S.O.E. was not
authorised and for causing wrongful benefit to the company M/s BCIPL.

The above findings clearly establish that all the various elements of the Charge No. 1 and
Charge No. 2 are individually fully proved.

Here it would be pertinent to mention the ruling given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others Vs- Nikunja Bihari Patnaik
(1996) 9 S.C.C.69, (copy attached marked Annexure-IV) where it has been held that

In acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of
Regulation 3. In constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof of
loss is really necessary

In view of all the aforesaid, it is held that:

Charge No. 1- proved

Charge No. 2- proved

14. Petitioner submitted a reply dated 16.02.2007 to the inquiry report that doctrine of
preponderance of probability was not correctly followed and erroneously burden was shifted on
CSOE; there were two handwriting expert reports, one by Management and other by CSOE,
however, only report of Management was considered; Enquiry Authority has wrongly placed
reliance on statements made during police investigation; CSOE was not able to put his defence
rightly since allegedly there was a confusion in proceedings; CSOE was not granted opportunity to
examine or re-examine witnesses for ME-19 to ME-22; despite a request was made and
Management Witnesses were not recalled etc.
4 All. Vinod Kumar Sethi Vs. UCO Bank & Ors.
1953

15. Disciplinary Authority after considering inquiry report submitted by Enquiry Authority
and a reply submitted by petitioner, i.e., CSOE, passed a reasoned final order dated 22.03.2007,
whereby the outcome of inquiry report was accepted that both charges were found proved and
Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from service. Relevant part of order dated
22.03.2007 is reproduced hereinafter:

I have also gone carefully through the comments of CSOE to the E.A.'s Report and find
that

1. By merely writing that "written brief is a long rambling document" by E.A. does not
prove or establish any where that E.A. has not taken into consideration the contents of brief
submitted by CSOE.

2. For case referred by E.A. to establish the procedure of issuing Bank Guarantee which
was prevailing in B/O Ghaziabad, CSOE has mentioned that he has no comments to make on it,
meaning thereby his admission to the system & procedure of the Bank which he has violated. By
merely mentioning that he has never been punished in the past and has 30 years of unblemished
record, does not disprove or negate contents of allegation. No body can be excused from
prosecution for commitment of crime/breach of conduct merely on the basis that he has not
committed any crime/breach of conduct in the past. The pleas of CSOE is not tenable. The Doctrine
of Preponderance of Probabilities is an accepted doctrine, applied by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
various cases. It is not generated by either E.A. or P.O. I hereby reject contention of CSOE in this
regard.

It was not within the ambit of enquiry to verify such a document, which was not
presented during the course of enquiry. Neither the CSOE put up any record for verification from
it's original in the enquiry nor put-up such a demand. I see no tenable reason put forth by CSOE to
establish that rules of natural justice have not been satisfied.

Filing of complaint in Police Authorities by MW-3 is not result of any biased attitude but
discharge of his official duty. Criminal Proceedings are persued for breach of law while
departmental enquiries are meant to look into breach of discipline and/or any act of misconduct as
described by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ms. Neera Yadav's case in January, 2007. Complaint has
been filed after thorough investigation into the matter and therefore, was not the result of any
biased attitude towards any one. E.A. has relied on the records of trial court because it is connected
to the same matter, i.e., B.G. for Rs. 47.00 Lakhs. Hence, I find no substance in CSOE's comments
in this regard. i.e., fraudulently issuing a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 47.00 Lakhs on 09/11/2002, for
which criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings have been instituted. I find that
E.A. has acted in a judicious manner. Pleas advanced by CSOE that E.A. has not realized the
consequence of his findings on such record on the life of CSOE have no hearance over the matter.
Hence, I reject the same.

3. The matter was investigated by another Senior Officer of the Bank Mr. R.K. Gariyali
and on the basis of the facts mentioned in that Report suitable action has been taken by Mr.
1954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bhandari in his capacity of Disciplinary Authority. Contention of CSOE in this regard is hereby
rejected.

4. Section 21 of I.P.C. referred to by CSOE is not applicable in this enquiry. The present
enquiry has been conducted in accordance with provisions/regulations of UCO Bank Officer
Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 as amended & E.A. has been appointed
accordingly. I see no violation of Regulations meant for Officer Employees'. Hence I reject plea
raised by CSOE in this regard.

5. E.A. has judiciously analysed the record of enquiry before him and then arrived at the
findings as mentioned in his Report. Findings are not errors of judgement.

6. I find that CSOE has again raised the point of "errors of judgement" made by E.A. in
his findings. CSOE has just narrated his story of last two years, which has no relevancy here. He
was advised to offer his comments on E.A.'s Report. What ever CSOE has mentioned on page 13 &
14 under para 6 of his comments, has no relevancy to the matter. If CSOE remained in judicial
custody for 46 days, it was due to breach of law committed by him. Other matters are personal in
nature. CSOE is supposed to choose an officer as D.R., who is able to assist him as per the time
frame of enquiry. In case of any problem regarding his unavailability, he was free to change his
D.R. It is wrong to mention that he had no control over his DR. E.A. has expected nothing much
from DR but he was duty bound to conclude the enquiry as early as possible, because it was
inordinately delayed. It was supposed to be completed by 31/08/2005. It is also a fact that on one
hand the enquiry was being delayed on account of adjournments sought by CSOE/DR, but on the
other hand, CSOE has filed CMWP No. 72210/2005 against the Bank & Ors. for causing delay to
him in completion of enquiry. Then Hon'ble Allahabad High Court fixed time-frame for
completion of enquiry. Even tha0n CSOE has been found to be demanding/gaining time on one
ground or another, causing delay in completion of enquiry.

7. What so ever CSOE has mentioned in this para, it has no relevancy with the present
matter. It is a matter of record that DR has also sought number of adjournments in enquiry due to
one reason or another, causing delay in completion of enquiry. Contrarily, CSOE has charged
management for delay in completion of enquiry and even filed Writ Petition against the Bank &
Others.

8. I find that due opportunities have been provided by E.A. to defence to conduct crossexamination of Mr. R.K. Gariyali (MW-2) His examination-in-chief was conducted and recorded
on 22/03/2006 in enquiry proceedings. There-after, many dates were fixed for enquiry, but CSOE
sought continuous adjournments for six months, also defying the instructions of Disciplinary
Authority to present himself before C.M.O. Bareilly for his medical check-up. I find that there was
no denial to CSOE by E.A. to cross-examine MW-2 and the basic tenets of natural justice have
been fully observed by E.A. In fact, lot of time and energy was spent to bring CSOE to participate
in the enquiry. Cat & Mouse game is figment of imagination of CSOE.

9. I find that defence only wanted to reserve their right to re-cross-examine MW-3, Mr N
P Mangla without assigning any acceptable reason, for which there is no provision as per
4 All. Vinod Kumar Sethi Vs. UCO Bank & Ors.
1955
Regulations of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 as
amended. Cross-examination of MW-3 was duly conducted by defence and recorded in enquiry
proceedings. There was no denial to cross-examine MW-2 Mr. R K Gariyali also. The conditions
and stipulations are well described in the aforesaid Regulations regarding engagement of DR. I find
no substance in this regard in CSOE's comments to E.A.'s Report.

10. Allegations made by CSOE do not contain any substance. Procedure & norms to
conduct departmental enquiry are well settled and defined in Discipline & Appeal Regulations. It is
just the figment of imagination of CSOE to describe the proceedings as "cat and mouse game".

11. The Charge-sheet served on CSOE is based on facts contained in Investigation Report
of MW-2 submitted to the Bank. I reject the plea of CSOE. There is no discrimination or bias-ness
against CSOE, as revealed by enquiry proceedings.

12. ME-8 is referred only to prove practice/habit of the CSOE of doing such acts. It was
not a subject matter of this enquiry. A separate Charge-sheet dt. 18/10/2004 was issued to CSOE
regarding the issuance of ME-8. It is very well mentioned in the Charge-sheet that CSOE was in
habit of issuing Bank Guarantees like ME-8. This fact had to be proved in this enquiry. It's very
purpose was to lay foundation of Charge. I find E A justified to expunge question no. 9 of defence
put to MW-3 during his cross-examination in enquiry.

13. ME-19 to ME-22 have been inducted in the enquiry by P.O. in accordance of
Regulation 6(14) of Discipline & Appeal Regulations. I find no violation of natural justice or
miscarriage of justice by doing so. Re-examination of any witness is the right of each side after
completion of cross-examination of that witness by other side, as defined in aforesaid Regulations.

14. It is prerogative of management or defence, as to which witness they want to produce
either to substantiate or rebut/refute the Charge. It is not the right of other side to object to that. I
find that P.O. has stated on 02/11/2006 during enquiry proceedings that after cross examination and
re-examination of MW-3, the management presentation will be closed, as recorded by E.A. during
enquiry proceedings. It goes to establish that CSOE had the prior knowledge of closure of
management presentation, as mentioned by E.A. in his Report. I find no substance in CSOEs
comments on E.A.'s Report in this regard. It is also a fact as cited supra that enquiry was delayed
due to adjournments sought by the defence and if a time of one and a half year was consumed to
conclude the management presentation, it was due to delaying tactics adopted by CSOE/DR. I find
no miscarriage of justice in conducting the enquiry as alleged by the CSOE.

15. It is a wrong notion of CSOF in saying that E.A. has allowed P.O. over 11 months for
inspection of original of ME-3. Right from 04/07/05, CSOE sought continuous adjournments till
07/11/05 and there after also from 22/04/06 to 21/09/06, causing delay in completion of enquiry..
After finding location of original of ME-3, it was got inspected by CSOE. It was very well
mentioned by E.A. in enquiry proceedings held on 02/11/2006 that no further time will be allowed
for the sake of study of the case/papers by new DR and the defence must come fully prepared for
their presentation immediately after cross-examination and re-examination, if any, of MW-3 on
14/11/2006, the next date of hearing. CSOE, instead of attending enquiry, submitted a medical
1956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certificate w e f 08/11/2006 upto 07/12/2006, seeking adjournment of enquiry. The enquiry was
held on 05/12/2006. The defence had sufficient time to prepare their presentation. In the meantime,
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court issued directions in CMWP No. 72210/2005 filed by CSOE to
conclude enquiry within 4 months w.e.f. 15/11/2006. I find that the defence was allowed sufficient
time by E.A. for their presentation and no injustice is caused to CSOE. Directions issued by
Hon'ble High Court were to be followed scrupulously by E.A.

16. Through the deposition of management witnesses and with the support of
management exhibits, the signatures of CSOE have been confirmed on ME-2, ME-4, ME-8, ME21/2 and various parts of ME-22 beyond any doubt. It corroborated the findings of Handwriting
Expert through his Report (ME-22/2, 3 & 4). I find no substance in the contention of CSOE
regarding copying and/or forging his signatures on ME-2, ME-4, ME-8 & ME-21/2.

17. ME-2 to ME-22 were brought in the enquiry as they were thought to be relevant to
the enquiry. The authenticity of the signatures of CSOE on ME-2, ME-4, ME-8 & ME-21/2 have
been discussed supra and else where in enquiry proceedings on the basis of facts brought in during
the course of enquiry & not after it is concluded.

18. I find that P.O. declared his intention of closure of management presentation on
02/11/2006 during the enquiry. CSOE can't insist upon the management for it's presentation. I also
find that defence was provided sufficient time & opportunity to present their case in the enquiry. I
find no material substance in CSOEs contention.

19. It is not correct on the part of CSOE to say that the directions of the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court have been used to cut the throat of the CSOE. Through Notification of the
Disciplinary Authority issued on 31/05/2005, E.A. was directed to conclude the enquiry by
31/08/05. The enquiry was inordinately delayed. I find no substance of truth in the contention of
the CSOE.

20. The doctrine of "res ispa loquitur" as quoted by the CSOE has no application in
present context.. CSOE has been provided full opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. I find
no denial of natural justice caused to CSOE in the enquiry.

21. Any record which is tendered after completion of enquiry by either side, has no
relevancy, as the documents placed as exhibits in enquiry are to be inspected with their original
records, testified by the witnesses about their contents and only then taken in the enquiry.

22. ME-22 has been obtained by Investigating Officer of S.I.S., Ghaziabad after lodging
F.I.R. by the Bank in the matter of issuance of Bank Guarantee for Rs. 47.00 Lakhs. What ever
documents the CSOE has referred to have been handed over to Police, that has been done as per
requirements of law during the course of Police Investigation. CSOE has duly inspected all the
contents of ME-22 on 26/09/06 in District Court Ghaziabad in presence of E.A. as recorded in
enquiry.
4 All. Vinod Kumar Sethi Vs. UCO Bank & Ors.
1957

After careful study of enquiry record, exhibits on record, deposition of witnesses,
management & defence briefs, E.A.'s Report and CSOE's comments there-on, I further find that

1. Matter relating to existence of originals of ME-2 & ME-4 has been raised by the CSOE
before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court through his CMWP No. 72210/2005. Through it's Order
dt. 15/11/2006, Hon'ble Court has directed that "the Bank is only obliged to show those papers
which are in it's custody and which it proposes to rely upon during the departmental proceedings.
The Bank is not obliged to search out, obtain and supply the defence material, on being
requisitioned, to the employee. We may mention here that this is a departmental enquiry and not
court proceedings which may be governed strictly by the Indian Evidence Act.

2. ME-2 & ME-4 have not been signed by MW-1, but have been signed jointly with
CSOE by such a person, who is not official of Ghaziabad branch. This is as per the deposition
made by MW-3, Mr. N.P. Mangla, then Senior Manager of the branch who was well versed with
and capable of identifying signatures of Officers of branch.

3. While going through the proceedings, it is clear that no bias-ness was exhibited
towards CSOE during the enquiry.

4. Management's case is not based of suspicions but based on hard facts revealed through
investigations conducted by MW-2, and the documents connected with the case, alongwith Xerox
copies provided to the Bank by concerned beneficiary departments. Contention of CSOE, therefore,
does not merit any consideration.

5. Doctrine of Preponderance of Opportunities is applied depending on the circumstances
of the case. There are sufficient grounds to apply this doctrine based on management documents
and deposition of management witnesses. Contention of CSOE does not merit any consideration.

6. ME-22 is obtained by Investigating Officer, S.I.S., Ghaziabad from Handwriting
Expert Mr. Sanjeev Tomar and its conclusion has been drawn on the basis of some documents in
original, bearing signatures of CSOE and ME-22/7, 8 & 9, being the copies of ME-2, attested by U
P Jal Nigam. It is not obtained by the Bank. While DE-5 is obtained by CSOE himself on
08/12/2006 with the purpose to counter ME-22 and it is not based on any of the documents in
original. On perusal of defence brief, it is found that CSOE has annexed Annexure-I, containing (i)
Letter of Sh Raj Singh Verma dt. 20/12/2006 addressed to Mr. V.K. Sethi (CSOE) & (ii) Xerox
copies of Applications dt. 14/12/2006, moved by Mr. Chetan Kumar Verma & Mr. Raj Singh
Verma for conducting Inspection of Records in Cr. Appeal No. 683/05 & 684/05 in the Court of V
Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad. It is hereby established with the record produced by CSOE that
inspection of records was conducted by Mr. Raj Singh Verma, Handwriting Expert & writer of DE5, on 14/12/2006 while he prepared his Report on 08/12/2006, even before he claimed to have
inspected the record on 15/12/2006. Hence, its reliance is susceptible and its very purpose seems to
negate the effect of ME-22, as mentioned by E.A. in his Report.
1958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Bank is under no obligation to consider any such record/ document, which has not been
presented in the enquiry at appropriate stage & time by the defence. Extraneous record beyond
enquiry is not to be considered.

8. As far as matter of Criminal Court is concerned, the case is regarding fraudulently
issuance of Bank Guarantee for Rs. 47.00 Lakhs on 09/11/2002 by CSOE and ME-19, ME-20, ME21 & ME-22 are connected and related documents pertaining to the present Charge-sheet. There is
no such bar in any law, not to use such documents in enquiry.

9. It is also a matter of record that CSOE has caused inordinate delay in completion of
enquiry, as mentioned in details by E.A. in his Report. If management presentation was concluded
on 05/12/2006, delay was caused due to adjournments sought by CSOE and/or his DR on one
reason or other.

10. CSOE has not given any cogent reason to E.A. in the enquiry to further crossexamine any management witness at any stage. He only wanted to reserve his right to further crossexamine MW-3 only, if needed so, which is not permissible in departmental enquiries. There is no
provision to re-cross-examine any witness. E.A. is found justified in this regard.

11. As far as the matter of cross-examination of MW-2 is concerned, his examination-inchief was completed on 22/03/2006 and there-after so many dates were fixed for enquiry, but
CSOE sought continuous adjournments of enquiry as recorded by E.A. in his Report and every
time, MW-2 had to be informed to attend enquiry and then not to come due to adjournments sought
by defence. It is pertinent to mention here that MW-2 is on deputation in Rastriya Mahila Kosh and
not under direct control of the Bank. Every time when MW-2 is summoned to appear before the
enquiry, Director of Rastriya Mahila Kosh had to be requested. E.A. was justified to mention that
CSOE had a sufficient time of 6 months from the date of deposition of MW-2 to prepare for his
cross-examination with the assistance of his DR.

12. There is no substance in mentioning by CSOE that enquiry proceedings be kept in
abeyance till completion of criminal proceedings. Criminal proceedings are meant for any breach
of law, while departmental enquiry is meant to look into breach of discipline and acts of
misconduct on the part of an employee. Supreme Court's judgement in Neera Yadav's case
pronounced in Jan., 2007 is also referred by E.A. , which has logical application in this matter. The
plea of CSOE to keep in abeyance the enquiry till completion of criminal proceedings is not
tenable.

13. As alleged by CSOE that findings of E.A.