W.P.(S) No. 1631 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1631 of 2017 ---- Vishnudeo Mishra s/o Late Kali Kanta Mishra, R/o Anugrah Nagar, PO and PS Dhansar, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Petitioner -versus- 1. Bank of India through General Manager, Office at Star House, C-5, “G” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), PO and PS Bandra (East), Dist- Mumbai, Pin: 400051. 2. The Zonal Manager, Jamshedpur Zone-cum-Appellate Authority, Bank of India, Office at: Bank of India Building, Main Road, Bistupur, PO and PS Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Pin: 831001, Jharkhand. 3. The Zonal Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Bank of India, Office at: Zonal Office, Dhanbad Zone, S.R. Mansion, Shastri Nagar, PO and PS Dhanbad, Dist- Dhanbad, Pin: 826001, Jharkhand. 4. Senior Branch Manager cum Inquiring Authority, Bank of India, Jharia Branch, PO and PS Jharia, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate ---- 13/ 12.02.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs: - (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing of the order dated 21/09/2006 whereby and whereunder the Zonal Manager, Dhanbad Zone and Disciplinary Authority awarded Major Penalty of Compulsory Retirement under Regulations 4(h) of the Bank of India Officer Employee (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976; (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing the appellate order dated 25.02.2009 passed by Zonal Manager, Jamshedpur Zone whereby and whereunder the Appellate Authority confirmed the penalty order dated 21.09.2006 imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and therefore the appeal preferred by the petitioner was disposed of without any relief; -: 1 :- W.P.(S) No. 1631 of 2017 (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) directing upon the respondents to grant consequential benefits after quashing of the aforesaid impugned orders. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Departmental Proceeding was not conducted in a fair and proper manner inasmuch the request for adjournment by the petitioner was denied and enquiry was conducted ex-parte. He submits that due to denial of adjournment and proceeding ex-parte, petitioner could not cross examine two important witnesses of the management in the Departmental Proceeding. He submits that this is sufficient instance to show that principles of natural justice and fair play have been violated by the respondents in conducting the Departmental Proceeding. As per him even if the charges against the petitioner are deemed to have been proved, the punishment of compulsory retirement from service is too harsh and highly disproportionate to the misconduct. He also argues that in order to exaggerate the charges against the petitioner, minor procedural irregularities have been projected as serious irregularities and moreover, the bank did not suffer any monetary loss on account of procedural irregularities. He further submits that before imposing major penalty, petitioner was not served with a second show cause notice. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank vehemently counters the submissions of the petitioner and supports the punishment imposed by the respondents. He submits that the respondents have conducted the Departmental Proceeding in a fair and proper manner without there being any irregularity or illegality. He submits that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case in the Departmental Proceeding and in the midst of the proceeding when the petitioner started to seek unreasonable adjournments, the enquiry officer proceeded ex-parte. He submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner from the side of the respondents, as it was fault on the part of the petitioner that he did not attend the proceedings. He submits that the petitioner being an officer of the Bank ought to have adhered to the discipline of procedures and ought to have acted with honesty and integrity while discharging his duties, which he failed and there were serious charges of misconduct against the petitioner which stood proved in course of Departmental Proceeding through the witnesses and the exhibits. He submits that the Disciplinary Authority has correctly awarded the -: 2 :- W.P.(S) No. 1631 of 2017 punishment of compulsory retirement taking into consideration the gravity of the proved charges against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner was posted as Senior Branch Manager, Bank of India, Rajganj Branch from November 2004 to April 2005. He was served with suspension order dated 14.06.2005 on charges of serious irregularities committed by him in course of his duties as Senior Branch Manager of Rajganj Branch during November 2004 to April 2005. The petitioner was issued a Memorandum dated 30.08.2005 therewith enclosing the Article of Charges, Statement of Allegations in support of Articles of Charges, List of Documents and Witnesses by which the Articles of Charges were proposed to be substantiated. The petitioner was asked to submit his written statement specifically admitting or denying the charges. On request made by the petitioner, he was granted 2 days extra time vide letter dated 20.09.2005, to submit his written statement. Petitioner submitted his written statement on 24.09.2005. Not satisfied with the written statement of defence filed by the petitioner, Departmental Enquiry was proposed to be conducted against the petitioner under the Regulation 6 of the Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976. By letter dated 10.10.2005, petitioner was informed about preliminary enquiry scheduled to be held on 18.10.2005 and he was asked to remain present in the enquiry with his defence representation along with the list of defence documents/ evidences and witnesses. Petitioner had participated in the preliminary enquiry and had also participated in the departmental proceeding till 13.12.2005. He did not participate in the proceeding on the next date on the pretext of his mother’s sickness, thus, the proceeding was adjourned to 23.12.2005. On 23.12.2005 also, the petitioner was not present on the pretext of his sickness and request was made by the Defence Representative for an adjournment. The departmental proceeding continued ex-parte and on the next date, i.e., 16.01.2006 also the petitioner did not attend the proceeding. In course of the proceeding, 78 exhibits were produced by the bank and 12 witnesses were produced out of whom, 2 witnesses, namely, Thakur Prasad Mahato (MW 11) and Chitra Bahadur (MW 12) were examined ex-parte. Petitioner, thereafter, had submitted his written brief of defence on 10.02.2006 in respect of the departmental proceeding held against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 23.02.2006, which were communicated to the petitioner under Memorandum dated 01.03.2006. The Enquiry Officer had found the charges -: 3 :- W.P.(S) No. 1631 of 2017 against the petitioner to be proved. The petitioner was asked to submit his representation on the findings of the Enquiry Officer within 05 days of receipt of the memorandum. Petitioner had submitted his representation on 14.03.2006 to the findings dated 23.02.2006. The Disciplinary Authority – Zonal Manager, Dhanbad Zone of Bank of India vide order dated 21.09.2006 awarded major penalty of compulsory retirement under Regulations 4(h) of the Bank of India Officer Employee (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 for the acts of misconduct alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order dated 21.09.2006 before the Appellate Authority – General Manager, Bank of India, Head Office at Mumbai vide appeal letter dated 03.11.2006, Since despite lapse of two years, no order was passed on the appeal preferred by the petitioner, petitioner vide letter dated 21.11.2008 had requested to look into the same. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.02.2009 confirmed the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The appellate order dated 25.02.2009 was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 05.03.2009 issued by the Zonal Manager, Dhanbad Zone of Bank of India. Challenging the order dated 21.09.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the order dated 25.02.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 6. After hearing the parties I have gone through the records. It is the case of the petitioner that during midst of the proceedings, he could not examine the witnesses as he could not appear due to ailment of his mother and himself, thus, the Departmental Proceeding after that point proceeded exparte. It is also apparent from the pleadings and the records that adjournment was also granted to the petitioner, however, he failed to appear for consequent dates, thus, after giving full opportunity to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer had proceeded exparte. Admittedly, the petitioner was also given opportunity to put forth his case on the findings arrived by the Enquiry Officer and in availing the opportunity, the petitioner had submitted his representation, which was duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority and had passed the order awarding punishment. 7. The charges against the petitioner revolved around sanction / disbursement of large scale cash credits / term loans without following the bank procedures viz. not conducting pre-sanction inspection; without proper assessment of requirement of the borrower; without preparing the proposal; -: 4 :- W.P.(S) No. 1631 of 2017 disbursing loan amount without completion of security documents; not conducting post sanction inspection to ascertain end use of fund thereby causing finance being received by unworthy parties; allowing large scale cash withdrawals in CC Accounts; disbursement through SB accounts thereby causing misutilisation of bank’s fund; the stocks did not match with the present outstanding in the accounts; sanctioning loans to NPA borrowers by closing their earlier accounts without any justification; sanctioning loans to service men of BCCL for business purpose; mis-appropriation of borrower’s money; and accepting illegal gratification through the middle man. The Enquiry Officer in his findings has found the charges against the petitioner to be proved. Based on the findings by the Enquiry Officer and after considering the representation filed by the petitioner to such findings, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 21.09.2006 has awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service to the petitioner. The Appellate Authority also did not find any infirmity in the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and thus, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner by affirming the punishment order. 8. I find that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was the Senior Branch Manager of the Bank. A Senior Branch Manager of a Bank has to maintain utmost integrity and honesty. Any breach of honesty and integrity of the official of a Bank will amount to loss of confidence on the Bank by the customers which is fatal. There cannot be any compromise with honesty and integrity of a Bank official. 9. In matters of Departmental Proceedings, the scope of this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. This Court is not an Appellate Court to review and re-appreciate the evidence in the Departmental Proceeding or the punishment awarded. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 at paragraph 37 thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led before the enquiry officer. By referring to judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the High Court to review on the findings and arrive at a different finding. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well settled that the -: 5 :- W.P.(S) No. 1631 of 2017 High Court can interfere where the departmental authority has acted against the principles of natural justice or where the findings are based on no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules provided. Further, if the punishment imposed is excessive, the Court can interfere. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:- (i) re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based; (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of the State of Rajasthan and Others versus Bhupendra Singh, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1908 has reiterated the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Sree Rama Rao (Supra) and held that the High Court should not reappreciate evidence lead in the departmental enquiry. Further, in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others versus Ajay Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 24 thereof has held as under:- 24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the -: 6 :- W.P.(S) No. 1631 of 2017 face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. Further, in paragraph 28 of the aforesaid judgment (Ajay Kumar Srivastava) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 136 of the Constitution, the Court will not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceeding except in a case of mala fides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. 10. In view of the facts of this case and the judgment of the Supreme Court, as cited above, I find that there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the Disciplinary Authority in the Departmental Proceeding and the petitioner was also given adequate opportunity of hearing. Thus, this Court cannot interfere with the Departmental Proceeding and the punishment so inflicted. 11. The punishment, which has been awarded to the petitioner, who is a bank employee, who needs to maintain utmost sincerity, honesty and dedication, is not too harsh, nor is glaringly disproportionate so as to attract any interference by this Court. 12. In view of what has been observed and held above, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02 AFR -: 7 :-