[2025:RJ-JP:37525] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4895/2001 Govind Singh Son of Shri Kishan Lal, resident of Pipla, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman, Alwar Bharatpur Aanchlik Gramin Bank, I Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur 2. The Alwar Bharatpur Aanchlik Gramin Bank, I Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma Mr. Suresh Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order Date of Reserve : 10.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against penalty of removal from service awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 25.10.2000 as well as order dated 11.07.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority for dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the penalty order. It is contended that the petitioner was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Bansi Khurd Branch of Alwar, Bharatpur at Aanchlik Gramin Bank. One charge- sheet levelling as many as four charges were served upon the petitioner, which were relating to reaching the bank office after the scheduled time on 12.02.2000 and when he reached to the office, he was under intoxication of liquor. It was also mentioned that he was although in-charge of the bank and the keys of treasury were in his possession, yet he negligently left the same unattended [2025:RJ-JP:37525] (2 of 8) [CW-4895/2001] against the interest of the bank. It was also mentioned in the charge-sheet that he was habitual absentee and also made incorrect entries in the account of one Shri Bhagwan Singh. 2. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet, while denying the charges, he requested for dropping the matter at this stage only, however, Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and found the petitioner guilty of charges. Copy of inquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with notice dated 05.10.2000 proposing penalty of removal from service. The petitioner was heard pursuant to such notice and ultimately penalty order dated 25.10.2000 was issued for removing the petitioner from service. 3. It has also been submitted that although the petitioner filed appeal against the penalty order, yet the same was not entertained on merits and was dismissed simply treating the same to be time barred, vide order dated 11.07.2001. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that bare perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that in quite malicious manner one single incident has been sub-divided in four different charges only in order to create sensation and to make the charge-sheet grave and serious against the petitioner. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in a prejudiced manner. The documents referred in the charge-sheet were not provided to the petitioner either with the charge-sheet or during inquiry proceedings yet, by relying upon such documents, grave penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:37525] (3 of 8) [CW-4895/2001] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled for submitting representation against faulty inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer, yet the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner only with the proposed punishment and not earlier, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has a family to maintain and he was the only breadearner in the family. After the order of removal from service, his wife, four children and old mother have been striving hard even for daily bread and butter. As such, the penalty of removal imposed upon the petitioner was quite excessive and disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the Appellate Authority instead of appreciating the appeal on merits, took a hyper technical approach and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner merely on the ground of delay, which has also caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition and quashing the penalty order as well as appellate order. 6. Reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents, in which the impugned orders were defended and it was submitted that the conduct of the petitioner, where apart from being Clerk-cum-Cashier in the bank, he was also holding the charge of Branch Manager, was totally unbecoming of a bank employee. It has been submitted that on account of grave/gross misconduct committed by the petitioner on 12.02.2000, he was placed under suspension on 14.02.2000 and a charge-sheet containing specific charges, was served upon the petitioner in order to providing opportunity to defend himself. All the material documents were also supplied to the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:37525] (4 of 8) [CW-4895/2001] 7. Bare perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the petitioner. Instead of denying the charges, while submitting reply and other representations, the petitioner has virtually admitted the charges and his guilt. Even then, in order to provide fair opportunity, the inquiry proceedings were conducted in which the petitioner was also given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the management. The petitioner did not produce any evidence from the defence side for defending his cause. The Inquiry Officer, after analyzing the charges, reply to the charge-sheet as well as evidence/material on record has given his inquiry report, wherein the charges against the petitioner have been found proved. 8. It has been submitted that copy of inquiry report was served upon the petitioner along with proposed penalty, however, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to represent against the inquiry report nor did he file any reply to the notice dated 05.10.2000, consequently after appreciating the entire material as well as defence of the petitioner, moreso when earlier also the petitioner has committed misconducts, in the manner that he has remained wilfully absent for 741 days, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly passed penalty of removal from service against the petitioner. 9. Heard and considered. 10. I have examined the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner and found that specific and definite charges were framed against the petitioner in the charge-sheet and it cannot be said that only one incident has been fragmented in four pieces in order to frame four different charges. Charge No.1 was relating to [2025:RJ-JP:37525] (5 of 8) [CW-4895/2001] arriving late in the bank whereas, Charge No.2 was in relation to making wrong entries in the bank account of one Shri Bhagwan Singh. Charge No.3 was in respect of leaving the keys of the treasury of the bank unattended and Charge No.4 was in respect of remaining willful absent from 12.02.2000 to 14.02.2000 as well as in respect of his earlier conduct, where the petitioner has remained absent for as many as 741 days. It shows that he was habitual of remaining absent from bank. Thus, there was no manifest error or illegality in framing the charge-sheet by the Disciplinary Authority. 11. The petitioner has also raised a ground that fair opportunity was not given to him during inquiry proceedings, whereas the documents on record would show that the petitioner has virtually admitted the charges levelled against him and simply made a request to grant him another opportunity to improve his conduct. However, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to support his defence. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned penalty order on the ground that the inquiry report was served upon him along with proposed penalty, which showed that the Disciplinary Authority was adamant to penalise the petitioner even before representation of petitioner. I find that as per procedure, copy of inquiry report was sent to the petitioner vide letter/notice dated 05.10.2000, however, no representation whatsoever was submitted by the petitioner in order to establish any flaw, defect, material irregularity or illegality in the inquiry proceedings, where the issue of non-supply of the documents, if any, could have been raised by him. Thus, the opportunity granted to the petitioner was never availed by him. [2025:RJ-JP:37525] (6 of 8) [CW-4895/2001] Merely, proposing the charge on the basis of findings of inquiry report would not lead to an inference that the Disciplinary Authority was acting with pre-occupied mind. In fact, vide letter/notice dated 05.10.2000, the petitioner was granted opportunity to represent against the findings of Inquiry Officer of holding him guilty as well as against the proposed penalty, hence, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority has acted in transparent and fair manner. 12. Lastly, the petitioner has assailed the penalty by referring it to be excessive and disproportionate to the guilt. Although, it is a settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can intervene only where there is manifest violation of principles of natural justice or non-compliance of statutory Rules with regard to holding departmental inquiry or even in the case where the penalty imposed upon the delinquent was so excessive and disproportionate to the guilt, which would shock the conscience of the Court. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to point out any of the aforesaid defect or shortcoming either in the inquiry proceedings or in the quantum of punishment. While imposing penalty of removal from service, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly taken into consideration that earlier also the conduct of the petitioner was not suitable and on so many different occasions he had remained absent as well as on leave without pay. Thus in totality of the facts and circumstances, there is no scope of interference even in the quantum of punishment. [2025:RJ-JP:37525] (7 of 8) [CW-4895/2001] 14. In the case of General Manager (P), Punjab & Sind Bank and Others Vs. Daya Singh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 233, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines with regard to scope of judicial review in the matter of departmental inquiry and has observed as under:- "As held in T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai [(2006) 2 SCC 255 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 265] the scope of judicial review for the High Court in departmental disciplinary matters is limited. The observations of this Court in Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] are quite instructive: (SCC pp. 768-69, para 11) “11. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent ofcer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a fnding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent ofcer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the fnding of guilt even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the fndings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fdes or perversity i.e where there is no evidence to support a fnding or where a fnding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that fnding. The court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 4 SCR 718] the Constitution Bench has held: (AIR p. 370, para 23) ‘23. … the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not.’ ” 15. In the case of Bank of India Vs. Apurba Kumar Saha (C.A. No.7412/1993) decided on 14.12.1993, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to grant any benefit to the [2025:RJ-JP:37525] (8 of 8) [CW-4895/2001] bank employee who failed to avail the opportunity granted to the delinquent during the inquiry. 16. In the light of above discussion and after examining the record, I do not find any error in the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. 17. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is hereby, dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /2