1 2025:JHHC:32534 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3249 of 2021 ---- Basant Kumar, aged about 61 years, son of Baldev Prasad, Resident of Ekta Path Road, Bassu Bhawan Sudna, Bypass Road, P.O. & P.S.- Daltenganj, District- Palamu, Jharkhand. … Petitioner -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, 2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, At-Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The General Manager, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, At-Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. Regional Manager, Region 4, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Daltengunj, P.O. & P.S. Daltenganj, District-Palamu, Jharkhand ..… Respondents ---- PRESENT CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Allam, Senior Advocate : Ms. Asfia Sultana, Advocate : Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate ---- O R D E R Reserved on 17.09.2025 Pronounced on 30.10.2025 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 quashing of the order of penalty dated 03.04.2021 (Annexure-14) passed by Respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner had been awarded a major penalty of Reduction in time Scale of pay by two stages w.e.f. 31.01.2021 under regulation no. 39.1(b)(i) of Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2019 with cumulative effect as the same has been passed with a malafide intention to harass and humiliate the petitioner at the last stage of his service and further the same is in utter violation of Principal of Natural Justice because non supply of document required by the petitioner has highly prejudice his defense. (ii) Further for quashing of the Appellate order dated 18.06.2021 (Annexure-16) passed by the Appellate authority whereby and whereunder the said authority without taking into consideration the grounds taken in the appeal has rejected the same and upheld the order of penalty. (iii) For quashing of entire departmental proceeding because the same is actuated with a malafide intention and the same has been conducted in utter violation of principle of Natural Justice. 2 (iv) For a direction upon respondents to make payment of full salary to the petitioner for the period he had been kept under suspension and was paid only subsistence allowance. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as staff officer- MMGS-II Region IV, Daltanganj, Palamu. A complaint of demanding illegal gratification was made against the petitioner when he asked the two persons who had taken loan from the bank to repay the loan amount. The petitioner had also made a complaint dated 09.01.2020 against these persons for misbehaving with the petitioner. However, the respondents ignored the application of the petitioner and issued letter of suspension dated 26.02.2020. A memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 02.03.2020 to give his reply which the petitioner submitted on 17.03.2020 asking for certain documents to submit a proper reply but no documents were supplied to him, compelling him to submit his reply on 03.06.2020. Thereupon, the petitioner was put under departmental proceeding vide letter dated 15.07.2020 and on 17.08.2020 enquiry authority was appointed. The petitioner had submitted his objection vide letter dated 27.01.2021 to the departmental proceeding pointing out the irregularities therein. The petitioner was issued show cause dated 02.02.2021 to which he replied on 27.01.2021 and on the very next day i.e. 28.01.2021 the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer stating therein that the charges against the petitioner have been found to be true. In the meantime petitioner retired on 31.01.2021. However, on 02.02.2021 a second show cause was issued to which he submitted his reply on 06.02.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear for enquiry on 03.03.2021 which he followed. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding a penalty order dated 03.04.2021 was served upon the petitioner awarding him a major penalty of Reduction on time Scale of pay by two stages w.e.f. 31.01.2021 under regulation no. 39.1(b)(i) of Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2019. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by preferring an appeal dated 19.05.2021 but the Appellate Authority rejected it on 18.06.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of penalty has been passed arbitrarily without even considering the grounds taken by him. The counsel further submits that the petitioner made several requests for supply of the relevant documents for preparation of his defense but the respondent authorities denied the same stating that such documents cannot be supplied to him. The learned counsel also brings out that the respondents conducted the departmental proceeding in a very discrepant manner, without examining the complainant or serving the copy of complaint to the petitioner. The counsel 3 further submits that respondent authorities by not supplying the required documents to the petitioner have caused violation of principles of natural justice and also prejudiced the defense of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that complaint was made against the petitioner for illegal gratification and settlement of loan on terms with bribe money and the same has been proved during the departmental enquiry. The counsel contends that the documents which have been used against the petitioner were supplied to him. The counsel submits that the final order has been passed by the respondent authorities after duly considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. The counsel has further submitted several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the scope of interference of High Court under Article 226 has been discussed while dealing with matters of departmental proceeding. 6. From the argument of both the parties and from the record, I find that a complaint was made against the petitioner for taking illegal gratification for settlement of loan on easy terms. On receipt of the complaint an enquiry was setup against the petitioner and charges were framed and the petitioner was directed to reply which he did and after conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report founding the charges to be true. Further a second show cause was also issued which was replied by the petitioner. Based on the enquiry report and the reply the disciplinary authority punished the petitioner with a major penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect. Against the punishment the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected. It is the submission of the petitioner that some documents were not supplied to the petitioner but as per the respondents those documents were not even used against him thus no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. After going through the enquiry report I find that the enquiry was conducted in a proper manner where the petitioner was provided with opportunity to file his reply and after considering all the aspects the enquiry officer had come to a conclusion that the charges were proved against the petitioner and based on the report of the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority has punished the petitioner. Thus, I find no procedural illegality or irregularity committed in the entire disciplinary proceeding as opportunity of hearing was also provided to the petitioner. 7. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot act as an Appellate Court. The court cannot reappreciate evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force 4 and Others vs Rajendra Kumar Dubey” reported in (2021) 14 SCC 735 has held as under: “21.1. We will first discuss the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with respect to disciplinary proceedings. It is well settled that the High Court must not act as an appellate authority, and reappreciate the evidence led before the enquiry officer. We will advert to some of the decisions of this Court with respect to interference by the High Courts with findings in a departmental enquiry against a public servant. 21.2. In State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723] , a threeJudge Bench of this Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is not the function of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to review the evidence, and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may, however, interfere where the departmental authority which has held the proceedings against the delinquent officer are inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, where the findings are based on no evidence, which may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry, or the authorities were actuated by some extraneous considerations and failed to reach a fair decision, or allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations, or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. If, however, the enquiry is properly held, the departmental authority is the sole judge of facts, and if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a writ petition.” In view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the fact of this case the disciplinary proceeding cannot be interfered by this court. 8. Further from the records, I find that misconduct committed by the petitioner is of a grave nature. An employee of a Bank is expected to maintain highest standard of honesty as he is dealing with public money. He is expected to protect the interests of the bank and the faith of the public in the institution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Syndicate Bank v. B.S.N. Prasad”, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 601 at para 20 has held as under:- 20. It is well-settled that the Bank officers are expected to maintain a higher standard of honesty, integrity, and conduct. In para 17 of the decision of this Court in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain [Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain, (2005) 10 SCC 84 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 567] , it was held thus : (SCC pp. 95-96) “17. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost 5 integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Central Bank of India v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [Central Bank of India v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1194] , there is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulting in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The scope of interference of punishment order is also limited. Inflicting punishment is the domain of the employer. The court can only interfere when the punishment imposed is shocking to the conscience of the court or is disproportionate to the proved misconduct. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh” reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 has held at paragraph Nos.19, 19.1, 19.2, 19.3, 19.5 and 19.5 as follows: “19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating 6 remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” 10. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court and the fact of this case I am of the opinion that the misconduct of the petitioner is grave and the punishment inflicted upon him cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charge. 11. In view of what has been held above, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 30 .10.2025 Sandeep/ N.A.F.R.