1 Reserved on 23.01.2025 Pronounced on 22.04.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 609 of 2013 1 – P. L.Meshram S/o Chovaram Mashram Aged About 50 Years Ex. Senior Manager, Scale- 3, In Durg- Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, At Present R/o Chandra Colony, Kawarinbhata, Near Sabrash Hotel, Karunakunj, Rajnandgaon, Po, Ps, And Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chairman And Administative Authority And Ors. S/o Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, G.E.Road, Po And Ps Rajnadgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank Through Its General Manager, Head Office, G.E.Road, Po, Ps And Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri H.L.Sevak Inquiry Officer, Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, G.E.Road, Po And Ps Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ Bank : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) CAV ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:- 1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to produce the entire records leading to issuance of the impugned order, for its proposal, specially the documents relating departmental inquiry. 2 2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order Annexure P-11 & P-13. 3. That after quashing the same this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Bank authorities to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages with 12% interest per annum. 4. Any relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. 2. Fact of the case in nutshell is that the petitioner who was working as a Branch Manager of Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Rajnandgaon and posted at village Thelkadhi & Gandai was served with a charge-sheet dated 20.05.2008 inter alia imposing five charges upon him. One of the charges is with regard to misappropriation of crop insurance fund. An inquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter an Enquiry Report was submitted finding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The Enquiry Report was supplied to the petitioner who submitted the reply of it on 16.06.2008. After consideration of reply submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of dismissal from service without any future employment. The said punishment was challenged by the petitioner before the statutory appellate authority who vide its order dated 28.09.2012 maintained the findings of Enquiry Officer, however the punishment of dismissal from service with disqualification for future employment was modified to the punishment with compulsory retirement. The petitioner has challenged these orders before this Court. 3. Return has been filed by the respondents in which it has been stated that the petitioner being the Bank Manager, was responsible for smooth functioning of the Bank and the charges against the petitioner was duly proved after giving proper opportunity of hearing. The Enquiry Officer has given a categorical finding with regard to proof of all the charges which was also affirmed by the appellate authority. The Enquiry Officer as well as the appellate authority has meticulously examined the 3 evidence brought before it and gave a categorical finding of proof of charges against the petitioner, therefore, the prayer for dismissal of writ petition was made. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact first charge which is allegation of misappropriation of crop insurance funds is not proved and admittedly the same was made by another employee namely Manish Shrivastava and another enquiry was conducted against him which was proved and he was given only minor punishment whereas the petitioner was given major punishment with clear cut discrimination by the respondent authorities. He further submits that the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation of funds and as soon as it came to his knowledge, the same was deposited and informed to the Higher Officials. He submits that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case to its proper perspective and erroneously gave the finding of proof of charges against him which has wrongly been confirmed by the appellate Authority. He submits that the charges No.2 to 5 cannot be termed to be misconduct, even otherwise looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the punishment of compulsory retirement as modified by the appellate authority is disproportionate to the charges, therefore, he submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted from all the charges or alternatively, some minor punishment may be directed to be imposed upon the petitioner. He submits that by the flux of time the petitioner is facing great hardship and is not being paid regular pension. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shyamlal Tiwari Vs. Manager Director, Chhattisgarh Khadi Gramodyog Board reported in 2018 STPL 3186 Chhattisgarh. 5. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents/ Bank submits that the charge against the petitioner and another employee Manish Shrivastava is altogether different. The first charge against the petitioner is that he being the head of the Bank, was required to see the smooth functioning of the bank and he influenced the employee of the bank to commit misappropriation of crop insurance funds. He submits that the misappropriation of crop insurance funds was came into surface during the course of 4 audit, therefore, the submission that as soon as the mistake came into surface, the amount was deposited by him is misconceived. He further submits that the petitioner was given proper opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry and all the five charges were found proved on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence brought before the Enquiry Officer and after due application of mind, the punishment of dismissal from service debarring the future employment was imposed by the disciplinary authority. However, the appellate authority has also applied its mind and after appreciation of evidence gave a particular finding with regard to its agreement with the findings of Enquiry Officer in the appellate order. The appellate authority has categorically scanned the facts of the case as well as the material brought before it and the reason has been assigned to agreement with the finding of Enquiry Officer. However the appellate authority took a lenient view and modified the punishment of dismissal with disqualification of future employment to compulsory retirement. He further submits that as the punishment of dismissal was modified, the petitioner was paid entire leave encashment as well as gratuity. He submits that so far as pension is concerned, in the year 2018 the pension scheme was introduced in the respondent bank, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for regular pension. The pension is being paid to other employee who stood retired prior to 2018, therefore, there is no monetary loss caused to the petitioner. He further submits that the scope of judicial review in cases of Departmental Enquiry is very limited. The petitioner had not been able to place anything on record to suggest that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer affirmed by the appellate authority is perverse or contrary to the record. He submits that as such the responsibility of the petitioner was much higher pedestal to see that the employees of the bank were functioning properly and no loss is caused to the bank which involves the reputation and stake of the bank at large. The documents relates to enquiry has been given to him and also proper opportunity has also been provided. He also submits that the case of another employee Manish Shrivastava is entirely different to the case of the petitioner, therefore, he cannot 5 claim inequality between the petitioner and another employee Manish Shrivastava in imposing the punishment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From perusal of record it appears that the petitioner was posted as a Branch Manager in Gramin Bank posted at village Thelkandi & Gandai at relevant point of time when the said offence was committed. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and vide order dated 20.05.2008 he was suspended and copy of charge sheet and relevant record with list of witnesses were supplied to him. On 16.06.2008 vide Annexure P/2 the petitioner has submitted his reply against charge imposed upon him. On 30.08.2006 written argument has been also been submitted by the petitioner in which he has denied all the five charges imposed upon him. The charge no. 1 is very serious charge because the petitioner is working as manager and his duty is to control the employees and also to improve the bank financial status as well as he is custodial of the bank money but he himself has involved in the misappropriation of the bank funds is very serious offence. The charges leveled against the petitioner have also been duly supported by the documentary evidence as well as the witnesses have also supported the case. The ample opportunity has been given to the petitioner to prove his case. The content of charges is relevant and quoted below for ready reference:- “ 1. ቦኍ पी.एल. मेቦኍ मे ने अपीने पीद का दुरूपीयोग कार फसल बीमे का अधिका ቚኋ प्त एवं असमे योजि त र शि" का दुብኌवं$निनेयो ने कार बी&का का सवं ईमे नेद र एवं निने቗ኋ पी)वं*का नेीሻ, निकायो तथा बी&का का निीሻत का आ त पीुሺ0चा ने का ቚኋयो स निकायो । 2. ቦኍ पी.एल. मेቦኍ मे ने नेबी)झकार बी र-बी र आदतने आद"4 / निनेद5"4 का अवंीሻलने कार कात*्ቤ स अने धिका7 त रूपी स अने8पीቝኌ:त रीሻ कार एका अधिका र का त;र पीर उन्ीሻने अपीने द धियोत्वं उशिचात रूपी स निनेवं*ीሻने नेीሻ, निकायो ीሻ?। 3. ቦኍ पी.एल. मेቦኍ मे " खा ቚኋबीका का पीद पीर पीद: रीሻकार " खा ्ቤवंस यो का निवंभिB्ቐ लቌኚयो का ቚኋ ቎ኌप्त नेीሻ, कार अपीने द धियोत्वं4 का उशिचात त;र पीर निनेवं*ीሻने नेीሻ, निकायो ीሻ?। 4. ቦኍ पी.एल. मेቦኍ मे ने " खा ቚኋबीका का पीद पीर पीद: रीሻ कार सरका र अधिका रिरयो, बी&का का ग ीሻका4 का स था बी&िሗका$ग ्ቤवंीሻ र का द;र ने शि"ቖኋ चा र पी)वं*का ्ቤवंीሻ र नेीሻ, निकायो तथा ቇኋ ीሻकायो सवं पीर ध्यो ने नेीሻ, दिदयो जि सका का रण बी&का ्ቤवंस यो पीर ቚኋनितका) ल ቚኋB वं पी़቟ । 6 5. ቦኍ मेቦኍ मे ने ीሻ निनेगतN । सदिदग् आቜኌQतयो4 का अपीलखिखात कारने ीሻत8 ቚኋ ने का यो *लयो ቛኋ र र बी.आर.-1 का समे यो ने समेयो पीर नेीሻ, कार उन्ीሻ ने का यो* का ቚኋ थाधिमेकात का अनेदखा निकायो एवं अपीने कात*्ቤ निनेवं*ीሻने मेT ल पीरवं ीሻ बीरत जि सस " खा एवं बी&का का पीरिरण मे पीर ቚኋनितका) ल ቚኋB वं पी़቟ । 8. From perusal of charge-sheet it appears that the petitioner is not performing his duty honestly the first charge imposed upon the petitioner is very serious in nature and for that the petitioner has not able to come out from the said charge. It also appears from the record that in charge-sheet the allegations of insubordination, financial misappropriate involving moral turpitude and unauthorized absence which caused high risk to the financial and other interests of the respondent bank. The records also reflects that due opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and was made accessible to all the documents and other materials relied by the respondents bank to establish the charges imposed upon him. From bare perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is failed to prove his case. The gravity of charges leveled against him is serious in nature and the punishment imposed upon him from dismissal from service shall be a disqualification for future employment has sympathetically considered by the appellate authority and order for compulsory retirement has been passed. The records also reveals that the case of another employee Manish Shrivastava is also distinguishable from the petitioner’s case and therefore it can not be said that the appellate authority has imposed major penalty upon the petitioner. It appears that the department has taken a very liberal view on the conduct of the petitioner. As such the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer which is affirmed by the appellate authority cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the record and this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence placed before the departmental enquiry as well as before the appellate authority. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 in Paras 24, 27 & 28 held as under:- 7 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 if 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 is perverse or suffers from patent error on the 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. 27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. 28. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides 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 that 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. Apart from Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 in Paras 12 & 13 held as under:- “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of 8 proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry 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, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented. The appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 781], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 11. Taking into consideration the above stated facts, this Court does not find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned orders and the finding of facts recorded by departmental enquiry as well as by the appellate authority cannot said to be perverse. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. Hence the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.04.24 10:40:38 +0530