1 NAFR Reserved on 03.07.2025 Pronounced on 07.10.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3400 of 2011 1 - Sachchidanand Dubey S/o Late Shri Suresh Chand Dubey aged about 53 years (Senior Assistant) R/o Koilari P. O., Bhaiyathan District Surguja (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Bank Of India Through the Chief General Manager, Local Head Office Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M. P.) 2 - Dy. G. M. (O & C) Network- 1, SBI Administrative Office, Byron Bazar, Raipur (CG) 3 - Assistant G. M. Administration, S.B.I. Administrative Office, Byron Bazar, Raipur (CG) 4 - Enquiry Officer/ Chief Manager (Enquiry and investigation), S.B.I. Administrative Office, 3rd Floor, CCPC, Byron Bazar, Raipur (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla along with Ms. Shivani Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate along with Mr. Avinash Detha, Law Officer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Order 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order of dismissal dated 14.08.2010 (Annexure P- 8) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and against which a Departmental appeal 2 preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 21.09.2010 (Annexure P-9). 2. The facts, in brief, as projected in the writ petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of cashier cum clerk in the respondent No.1/ State Bank of India on 10.11.1983 and he was subsequently designated as Senior Assistant and posted at Bhaiyathan Branch. During the said period certain allegations have been made against him and pursuance to that, he was put under suspension vide order dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure P-2). The charge against the petitioner is that when he was posted at Bhaiyathan Branch certain irregularities and gross misconduct was committed by him regarding sanction of loan, account opening, cash payment and also other acts. It is also mentioned in the charge-sheet that the agricultural loan accounts were not properly drawn and maintained and also control cards were not prepared. The requisite details were not given, it is also mentioned that the cash/ transfer payment was passed by the petitioner whereas he is not authorized to do so. Pursuant to the said charges a departmental enquiry was contemplated and charge- sheet was issued to the petitioner vide order dated 27.05.2008 (Annexure P-3). The charge against the petitioner is quoted herein-below:- 1. अगस्त 2005 से जनवरी 2006 तक आपक द्वारी खोले गये लेगभग सेभ क षि ऋण खोत क न त दस्तवज भरी हुये हैं न हैं क! ट्रोले कर्ड$ बनये गये हैं , येहैं& तक षिक दस्तवज में( ऋण लेन क उद्देश्ये, रीशि-, जमेंन क षिववरीण आदिद क/ छ नहैं1 भरी गये थे न हैं एप्राइजले बनये गये थे, उक्त ऋण दस्तवज में( खोत खोलेत सेमेंये ऋण स्वक षित एव! स्वक त क7 गई ऋण रीशि- दज$ नहैं1 क7 गई थे इसेक बवज9द आपक द्वारी आधी-अधी9री जनकरी से हैं खोत खोले दिदये गये. 2. बहुत से ऋण खोत में( नगद/अ!तरीण भ/गतन आपक द्वारी पसे षिकये गये जबषिक ऋण से!ब!धी भ/गतन पसे करीन क आपक कई अधिधीकरी नहैं1 थे. ब क षिनयेमें क तहैंत षिकसे भ ऋण क प्राथेमें भ/गतन सेक्षमें अधिधीकरी (-खो प्राब!धीक) द्वारी हैं पसे षिकये जन चाषिहैंये परीन्त/ आपक द्वारी अधिधीकरी क दुरुपयेग करीत हुये कई भ/गतन क पसे करी दिदये गये. आहैंरीण पत्रों क पसे करीन से पहैंले षिहैंतग्राहैं से इसे आ-ये क कई पत्रों भ नहैं1 शिलेये गये षिक उसे उसे सेमेंये षिकसे कये$ क शिलेये षिकतन रीकमें क7 आवश्येकत हैंC. सेभ क षि कयेD, येथे बज, खोद, मेंजदूरी, क7टाण/न-क 3 दवईये& आदिद क शिलेये एक सेथे ऋण षिवतरीण करी दिदये गये. उदहैंरीणथे$ से!लेग्न एनक्सेरी-ए में( दिदये गये हैं . 3. आपक द्वारी एनक्सेरी-ए में( -धिमेंले बहुत से क . से. से. आहैंरीण पत्रों नवम्बरी 2005, दिदसेम्बरी 2005 व जनवरी 2006 में( पसे षिकये गये हैं जबषिक से!ब!धिधीत जमेंन एक फसेले (खोरीफ) से से!ब!धिधीत हैंC, ज जमेंन द फसेले हैं त उसेक रीकब बहुत कमें हैंC. नवम्बरी, दिदसेम्बरी व जनवरी मेंहैं में( खोरीफ फसेले हैंत/ कई भ ऋण षिवतरीण क7 आवश्येकत सेमेंन्येतJ नहैं1 हैंत हैंC इसेक बवज9द आपक द्वारी पस्टिंस्टाLग/पसे षिकये गये आहैंरीण परी अधिधीक से अधिधीक रीशि- पसे करीक भ/गतन षिकये गये हैंC 4. आपक द्वारी बहुत से आहैंरीण पत्रों क भ/गतन षिहैंतग्राषिहैंये हैंस्तक्षरी/अ!ग9ठा षिन-न क सेत्येपन षिकये षिबन में/गलेन षिकये गये, भ/गतन कये$ श्री दिदन- येदव एव! दिदले मेंPहैंम्मेंद, मेंध्येस्थों/दलेले क मेंध्येमें से आहैंरीण पत्रों क पछ उनक हैंस्तक्षरी पहैंचान अथेव गवहैं क7 हैंCशिसेयेत से लेकरी षिकये गये. आपक द्वारी उक्त ग!भरी अषिनयेधिमेंतत करीत हुये घोरी क्येचारीण क कये$ षिकये गये हैंC. उदहैंरीणथे$ क/ छ खोत क षिववरीण से!लेग्न स्नक्सेरी-से में( दिदये गये हैंC। 5. बहुत से षिहैंतग्राषिहैंये द्वारी शिलेखिखोत शि-कयेत क7 गई हैंC षिक उन्हैं( स्वक त रीशि- से कमें रीशि- क भ/गतन षिकये गये हैंC जबषिक उनक ऋण खोत क ज्येद रीकमें से नमें षिकये गये हैंC. उन्हैं( भ/गतन भ ब क परिरीसेरी में( प्राप्त न हैंकरी षिकसे भ अन्ये क मेंध्येमें से प्राप्त हुआ हैंC. ऐसे शि-कयेत प/शिलेसे थेन, कलेक्टारी सेरीग/ज, अन/षिवभगये अधिधीकरी सेरीग/ज क भ क7 गई हैंC जिजसेसे ब क क7 छषिव धी9धिमेंले हुई हैंC सेथे हैं वसे9ले भ से!दिदग्धी हैं गई हैंC. उदहैंरीणथे$ एनक्सेरी-व में( दिदये गये हैं . 6. भCयेथेन क तत्कलेन -खो प्राब!धीक श्री एसे. क . दसे द्वारी दिदन!क 25.11.05 क दिदये गये कये$लेयेन आद-, जिजसेमें( अषिग्रामें से!ब!धी कये$ करीन से मेंन षिकये गये थे, क7 अवहैंलेन करीत हुये आपक द्वारी दिदन!क 26.11.05 से 03.12.05 तक क7 अवधिधी में( 222 ऋण खोत खोले गये एव! ऋण षिवतरीण कये$ षिकये गये जिजसेमें( कई षिहैंतग्राहैं फज[ हैं . जिजन व्यक्तिक्तये क अस्तिस्तत्व हैं नहैं1 हैंC उनक ये त भ/गतन अथेव भ/गतन आपक द्वारी षिकये गये. स्थोंये -खो प्राब!धीक श्री दसे द्वारी स्वक त षिकये गये कई फज[ व्यक्तिक्_ये क ऋण क भ भ/गतन पसे करीन में( आप -धिमेंले रीहैं हैं .. आपक इसे क त्ये से ब क क बहुत अधिधीक आर्थिथेLक हैंषिन हुई हैंC. 4 7. आपक द्वारी कये$करी रीकर्ड अधिधीकरी क पद परी रीहैंत हुये ब क मेंस्टारी शिसेस्टामें क7 ई.ओ.र्ड. एव! एसे.ओ.र्ड. क7 ज रीहैं थे सेथे हैं ये9जरी क! ट्रोले आषिफसेरी, शिलेधिमेंटा/ब्येज इनप/टा/अथेरीईज-न वक$ आदिद क सेथे-सेथे प्राणले प्रा-सेक क प9ण$ कये$ षिकये गये जबषिक आपक इसेक कई अधिधीकरी नहैं1 थे न हैं कई कये$लेयेन आद- दिदये गये थे. 8. आपक द्वारी कये$करी रीकड़ अधिधीकरी क पद क दुरुपयेग करीत हुये खो/द भ/गतन कC शि-येरीये पसिंसेLग अधिधीकरी क7 हैंCशिसेयेत से रीशि- स्वये! प्राप्त करी अपन षिनवसे स्थोंले क ग!व कशिलेयेरी ले गये एव! रीशि- में( अथेव बद में( अपन घोरी से षिहैंतग्राषिहैंये क श्री दिदन- येदव एव! श्री दिदले मेंहैंम्मेंद आदिद दलेले / मेंध्येस्थों क मेंध्येमें से आहैंरीण पत्रों में( द-$ये गये रीशि- से बहुत कमें रीशि- क षिवतरीण/भ/गतन षिकये गये. क/ छ ऋणिणये क त षिबल्क/ ले भ भ/गतन नहैं1 षिकये गये. आपक द्वारी ऐसे करीक न क वले घोरी कदचारीण षिकये गये वरीन ब क क षिहैंतग्राषिहैंये एव! ब क से धीखोधीड़ क7 गई. 9. क . वई. से. नम्से$ प9री हुये षिबन आपक द्वारी बहुत से ऋण खोत खोले गये हैं . क . वई. से. नम्से$ क पलेन नहैं1 हैंन क करीण इनमें( बहुत से खोत क भPषितक सेत्येपन करीन परी पये गये षिक आपक द्वारी खोले गये खोत क बहुत से षिहैंतग्राषिहैंये क कई अस्तिस्तत्व नहैं1 हैंC. कई दस्तवज में( फटा भ अन्ये व्यक्तिक्तये क लेग हुये हैं . क/ छ ऐसे भ दस्तवज हैं जिजनमें( फटा वले व्यक्तिक्त द्वारी हैंस्तक्षरी अ!ग9ठा नहैं1 लेगये गये हैंC. षिबन क . वई. नम्से$ क खोत खोलेकरी आपक द्वारी घोरी अषिनयेधिमेंतत क7 गई हैंC. 10. आपक द्वारी स्वये! क आरी.र्ड. खोत क्रमें!क 0129409501700 60 मेंहैं क शिलेये 14% ब्येज दरी परी दिदन!क 19.09.1996 क खोले गये थे जिजसेक7 परिरीपक्वत षितशिथे 19.09.2001 थे. आपक द्वारी सेक्षमें अधिधीकरी क7 स्वक षित शिलेये षिबन आरी.र्ड. खोत क7 -टा में( 60 मेंहैं क7 अवधिधी क 120 मेंहैं परिरीपक्वत षितशिथे शिसेतम्बरी 2001 क फ रीबदले करी शिसेतम्बरी 2006 एव! परिरीपक्वत रीशि- में( फ रीबदले करी रु.86812/- क रु.259550/- करी दिदये गये. आपक द्वारी ब्येज दरी लेगतरी कमें हैंन क करीण 14% ब्येज दरी क लेभ पन ब क दस्तवज में( फ रीबदले षिकये गये एव! शिसेस्टामें में( भ अपन स्वये! क आई. र्ड. से फ रीबदले षिकये गये. आपक द्वारी भCयेथेन -खो क7 लेभप्रादत क कमें करीत हुये व्यज खोत क नमें करीक रु.29,000/- अपन आरी.र्ड. खोत में( जमें षिकये गये जबषिक 5 ब्येज खोत क नमें करीन क अधिधीकरी आपक नहैं1 थे. आपक द्वारी अपन स्वये! क आर्थिथेLक लेभ क शिलेये अधिधीकरी क बहैंरी जकरी अपन पद क दुरुपयेग षिकये गये, स्वये! क फयेद पहु!चान क शिलेये ब क क आर्थिथेLक न/कसेन पहु!चान घोरी कदचारीण हैंC. 11. आपक द्वारी तत्कलेन -खो प्राब!धीक श्री एसे. क . दसे एव! सेहैंयेक प्राब!धीक श्री ब. आरी. रीण क सेथे से!ठाग!ठा करीक धिमेंलेकरी अगस्त 2005 से जनवरी 2006 तक 1300 ऋण खोत से अधिधीक खोत खोले गये एव! 3 करीड़ से भ अधिधीक रीशि- षिवतरिरीत क7 गई. उक्त खोत में( लेगभग 263 ऋण खोत फज[ पये गये हैं जिजनक7 से!ख्ये ज्येद भ हैं सेकत हैंC. इन फज[ खोत में( ब क क7 एक करीड़ क लेगभग रीशि- स्वक त एव! षिवतरिरीत क7 गई हैंC. आपक द्वारी षिकये गये घोरी कदचारीण से ब क क 3 करीड़ से भ अधिधीक हैंषिन हैंन क7 से!भवन हैंC. इनमें( आप षिकसे न षिकसे रूप में( लेगभग सेभ खोत में( येथे पस्टिंस्टाLग करीन, पसे करीन, भ/गतन करीन, खोत खोलेन आदिद कयेD में( आपक दखोले हैंC. भCयेथेन -खो में( हैंन वले षिवसे!गषितये/अषिनयेधिमेंततओं क7 जनकरी आपक हैंन क बद भ आपन येहैं जनकरी उच्च प्राब!धीन क नहैं1 दl गई. 3. On 12.07.2008 (Annexure P-4) reply to the charge-sheet has been submitted by the petitioner. The report has been submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 07.07.2010 and on the basis of said enquiry report a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he has been replied on 02.08.2010. The disciplinary authority passed a dismissal order on 14.08.2010 vide Annexure P-8 against which the petitioner preferred a Departmental Appeal which was also rejected on 05.05.2011 vide Annexure P-9 now the petitioner has preferred this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Class-3 employee and he was doing his work assigned by the Branch Manager. He submits that the disciplinary authority, as well as the appellate authority, have committed gross illegalities and anomalies in passing the impugned orders of dismissal and confirmation, which are liable to be quashed by this Court. He submits that in the departmental enquiry, the procedure prescribed under the applicable laws and regulations was not followed by the disciplinary authority, and the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to defend his interests. He further submits that despite 6 repeated requests, the necessary documents required for the defense were not supplied to the petitioner. He further submits that the charges levelved against the petitioner are vague, baseless, and not supported by any material evidence on record. Moreover, the charges could not be substantiated, and there is no evidence to connect the petitioner to the commission of the alleged acts. He also submits that authorities have failed to consider the fact that the petitioner has been held accountable for acts that were beyond his control, authority, and responsibilities. It is further argued that the petitioner was under the direct supervision of the Branch Manager and performed all tasks assigned by him. Furthermore, the work of preparing control cards was not within the petitioner’s prescribed duties, yet he has been held accountable for it. He submits that several crucial documents were concealed during the course of the enquiry, even though these documents were referenced by the petitioner. As such, the enquiry cannot be deemed fair or complete until these documents are produced by the Bank and also ensuring transparency and the petitioner may be given proper opportunity to defend his case. He also submits that the major penalty has been imposed upon him and which is disproportionate to the alleged acts. He submits that the Inquiry Officer disregarded the petitioner's fundamental rights during the disciplinary action and the appellate authority significantly delayed the adjudication of the departmental appeal, exceeding the stipulated two-months period. Eleven charges were leveled against the petitioner, but the prosecution failed to prove any of them, and some charges, like forgery, were specifically not proven. At the time of enquiry the material witnesses were not produced for cross-examination, and necessary documents were not made available. The complaints were made after a long period without plausible explanation, and a police investigation was conducted and in the said enquiry the petitioner was absolved of criminal liability, making him a witness (Annexure P-10). He also submits that the disciplinary authority failed to conduct the enquiry according to service rules and passed a prejudiced dismissal order based on ex-parte and preconceived notions. The authority should have considered actions taken in good faith, and the penalty is unwarranted without 7 concrete evidence. He submits that the enquiry report is biased and based on hypothetical observations rather than evidence, violating the doctrine of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and service rules. This necessitates the petitioner's reinstatement. He also submits that the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner regarding dereliction in duty and other financial irregularities but as per his post the limitation of duty and responsibilities are not that which he was charge-sheeted he also submits that the petitioner is holding Class-3 Post and his work has been assigned according to circular dated 18.08.2005. He further submits that the disciplinary action and procedure for enquiry of a workman is governed by the provisions of Desai Award and Shastri Award dated 29.07.2002. Lastly he submits that witness No.10 Basant Singh was found to be false but this was not considered. The Enquiry Officer is accused of being biased, leading to a report based on conjectures and surmises. He submits that the handwriting on loan and other documents in question is not that of the petitioner and the petitioner did not prepare any passbook and that the independent witnesses, the complainant (who died before the enquiry began) and bank customers were not examined. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. V. Mahadevan Vs. M. D., T. N. Housing Board reported in AIR 2006 SC 207; State of U.P. and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131 and Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1748 and Allahabad Bank and others Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari reported in (2017) 2 SCC 308. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may reinstate in service with full back wages and therefore, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. ED.) & Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 and also an order of this Court in the case of State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Iqbal Khan and Another reported in (2002) 4 MPHT 58 and in the case of H. K. Lagar Vs. C. G. Gramin Bank and Others reported in CGLJ 2022 (2) 12. 8 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed after a thorough inquiry, and the petitioner was provided ample opportunity and he was given all necessary documents, the chance to cross-examine witnesses, submit a defense, and produce witnesses in their favor, ensuring a fair hearing. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice, and the departmental proceeding was conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and there was also no procedural lapses or irregularity and after close scrutiny the charges leveled against the petitioner were found to be proven which are very serious in nature, the authority has passed an order of dismissal from service. The appellate authority has also rightly rejected the appeal. The disciplinary and appellate authorities exercised their discretion in removing the petitioner from service. He submits that the High Court in a writ petition would not sit as an Appellate Court. Considering the gravity of misconduct, judicial review under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is not called for, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. To buttress his submissions, he also placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of the State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Bhupendra Singh reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1908; Union of India and Ors. Vs. Dalbir Singh reported in (2021) 11 SCC 321; Union of India & Anr. Vs. K. G. Soni reported in (2006) 6 SCC 794; State Bank of India and others Vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 316; The State of Punjab Vs. Nacchattar Singh (dead) THR. LR. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 901. He also relies on decisions of this Court passed in Writ petition No.470/1998 dated 08.04.2013 and WPS No.2656 of 2011 dated 19.06.2024. He lastly submits that the circular dated 18.08.2005, which defines the duties of the petitioner and he has assigned the duties as he was holding a post. He also submits that during his tenure he has conducted financial irregularities. Regarding memorandum of settlement dated 29.07.2002 after examination of misconduct and financial irregularities committed by the petitioner appropriate order has been passed, therefore, it cannot be said that the circular has come to in his rescue. 9 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record in depth. 7. After perusal of record it appears that the petitioner was posted as a Senior Assistant at Bhaiyathan Branch and during that period some financial irregularities have been found against him and pursuant to that on 26.12.2006 he was suspended. The charges against the petitioner are that he has committed irregularities and gross misconduct regarding sanctioning of loan, account opening, cash payment and also agriculture loan account were not properly drawn and maintained as well as control cards were not prepared and also requisite details were not given. It is also alleged that the cash/transfer was done by the petitioner is without authority of law. A charge-sheet has been issued on 27.05.2008 in which 11 charges have been leveled against the petitioner and all are serious in nature. Record also shows that a enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer on 12.07.2010 and except charge No.7 all are found to be proved and on 20.07.2010 the petitioner has submitted his reply on the said enquiry report. A show cause notice for dismissal from service was issued to the petitioner and he was directed to submit this reply. The authority was not satisfied from the reply submitted by the petitioner on 02.08.2010 a dismissal from service of the petitioner has been passed which is also affirmed by the appellate authority on 05.05.2011 by the appeal filed by the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner is that he was under the direct control of Branch Manager and work was assigned by him and at that period he was working as cashier and committed serious irregularities. The charge-sheet issued to him also shows that during that period he has done financial irregularities. The next argument of the petitioner is that he has not been given proper opportunity to defend himself is baseless because all the documents relates to enquiry has been supplied to him and show cause has been given by the respondents. Pursuant to that the petitioner has submitted his reply and after passing an order he has also preferred an appeal. It appears that the relevant documents has been supplied to the petitioner and also he was informed time to time regarding proceedings therefore, he has submitted his reply. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Punjab (Supra) held that mere non-supply of the documents 10 which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside. The relevant para is quoted herein- below:- “ Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the reasoning given by the High Court, we are of the opinion that as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is unsustainable. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority solely on the ground that some documents were not supplied to the delinquent. However, it is required to be noted that as such there is no finding that non- supply of some documents has resulted into any prejudice caused to the delinquent-employee. Mere non-supply of the documents which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside.” 8. It also appears that he has misused his position and work contrary to Rules, Regulations and guidelines of the Bank and also failed to check and maintain the requisite documents. The prosecution proved its case against the petitioner by leading oral as well as documentary evidence. It also appears from the record that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and confirmed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate Authority is correct and not liable to be interfered by this Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others (Supra) held in Para 22 as under:- 22. In another Judgment reported as B.C Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors.5, it was held that the 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. The Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The Court is to examine as to whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. This Court 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 11 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 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 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 reappreciate 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 5 (1995) 6 SCC 749 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 coextensive 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 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at p. 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.” 9. The submission of the petitioner is that some documents relates to enquiry has not been supplied to him but he has not mentioned that what document has not been supplied and what prejudice has been caused, therefore, on this ground he cannot 12 claim any relief. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India (Supra) held as under:- “33. The Appellate Authority in its order dated 6th June, 1984 noticed that the respondent had "failed to submit his list of documents and witnesses which he wanted to produce for the purpose of his defence within the date stipulated the Inquiring Authority and he also did not raise any objection during the course of enquiry." The Review Committee in its order dated 12 th November, 1987 upon consideration of the entire matter observed as follows:- "The Petitioner has contended that certain documents required by him were not made available to him by the prosecution at the inquiry. The records reveal, in this respect, that he was asked to submit his lists of documents and witnesses by the 31st March, 1982 and that he had failed to do so. The lists were in fact received by the Presenting Officer on the 28th May 1982, far beyond the stipulated time, and as such no action was taken thereon. However, the Committee is at a loss to understand as to why the Petitioner did not press at the Inquiry for the production of the requisite documents if they were so vital as to cause serious prejudice to his defence as alleged. The Petitioner's accusation that the Inquiry Authority refused to summon all the defence witnesses is also not acceptable for the same reason that the list was not received within the stipulated period. The committee, however, observes that the Inquiring Authority had, in fact, permitted the Petitioner to produce his witnesses for deposition." 34. These observations indicate even though the grievance was made belatedly, the same was duly considered by the highest authority of the Bank. Even at that stage, the respondent had failed to point out as to what prejudice had been caused to him during the course of the enquiry. In such circumstances, the Division Bench was wholly unjustified in setting aside the entire disciplinary proceedings and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 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 13 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 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. The petitioner being a Bank employee was required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He was required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank, to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank employee. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/ employee of the Bank. The punishment inflicted upon the petitioner cannot be said to be shocking to the conscience of the Court and most of the allegations made against the petitioner have been found proved. 12. With regard to circular dated 18.08.2005 by which duties of the petitioner has been submitted is no relevant in this case because he has conducted financial irregularities and regarding memorandum of settlement dated 29.07.2002 after examination of misconduct and financial irregularities committed by the petitioner appropriate order 14 has been passed, therefore, it cannot be said that the circular has come to in his rescue. 13. The next submission of the petitioner is that an FIR has been lodged by the then Tahsildar Surajpur in which the petitioner was absolved from criminal liabilities and he was made a witness in the said case, therefore, the departmental enquiry on the basis of same charges is not sustainable. The FIR was not lodged by the Bank it is lodged by the Then Tahsildar, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents are binding upon the said FIR and the employer/Bank has conducted independent departmental enquiry. The departmental enquiry would be decided on the preponderance of probability, whereas in the criminal case the prosecution has to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Noida Entrepreneurs Associates Vs. Noida and Others reported in AIR 2007 SC 1161 in Para 17 held as under:- “17.The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. That being so, the order of the State Government deciding not to continue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and is quashed. The departmental proceedings shall continue.” 14. In present case a detailed enquiry was conducted by the respondent and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and supplying the papers of departmental enquiry he has submitted his reply and thereafter he was found guilty and looking to the nature of misconduct and financial irregularities an order of dismissal from service has been passed. Therefore, he cannot get any relief from this argument. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.10.08 17:21:01 +0530