1 Reserved on : 07/07/2025 Delivered on: 07/10/2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP No. 3381 of 2005 1 - Deceased Rajendra Mohan Tiwari Through LRs, 1.1 - Smt. Aruna Tiwari, Wd/o. Late Shri Rajendra Mohan Tiwari Aged About 60 Years R/o In Front Of Indira Bal Udyan, Near Indira Chowk, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Ravi Tiwari, S/o. Late Shri Rajendra Mohan Tiwari, Aged About 37 Years R/o In Front Of Indira Bal Udyan, Near Indira Chowk, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 1.3-Shashi Kant Tiwari, S/o. Late Shri Rajendra Mohan Tiwari, Aged About 34 Years R/o In Front Of Indira Bal Udyan, Near Indira Chowk, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 1.4-Suryakant Tiwari, S/o. Late Shri Rajendra Mohan Tiwari, Aged About 32 Years R/o In Front Of Indira Bal Udyan, Near Indira Chowk, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 1.5 - Smt. Punam Sharma, D/o. Late Shri Rajendra Mohan Tiwari, Aged About 27 Years W/o. Shri Dharmendra Sharma, R/o In Front Of Indira Bal Udyan, Near Indira Chowk, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 2 1 - The Assistant General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Allahabad Bank Zonal Office, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 2 - Inquiry Officer Shri I. K. Sinha, Allahabad Bank Head Office, 2 India Exchange Place, Calcutta., District:Kolkata, West Bengal 3 - The Appellate Authority, Deputy General Mangager, Allahabad Bank, Head Office, 2 Indira Exchange Place, Calcutta., District : Kolkata, West Bengal 4 - Allahabad Bank, Head Office, 2 India Ex-Change Place, Calcutta., District : Kolkata, West Bengal ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. N.K.Shukla, senior advocate with Ms. Meenal Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Salim Kazi, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) CAV ORDER Following prayer has been made in this petition - “i) To declare that the enquiry conducted by the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice and void. ii) To declare that order of disciplinary authority (Annexure -6) and Appellate authority (Annexure-7) are passed in utter disregard of principles of natural justice, in violation of procedure given in Regulation, 1976 and passed malafied, therefore, they are void. iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in above circumstances. iv) Cost of the petition.” 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the original petitioner–Rajendra Mohan Tiwari was Branch Manager of Allahabad Bank of Dabhra branch of Bilaspur during 01/11/1980 to 03/11/1982. The respondent No.4 is a banking company and 3 nationalised by enactment of parliament. Therefore, it is state within the definition given in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 29/11/1985 which was received by him on 06/12/1985. This charge sheet was not accompanied with list of witnesses and documents. On 18/08/1986, the respondent passed an order directing to proceed with the enquiry without reply. Meanwhile, the disciplinary authority and the enquiry officer both changed. The enquiry commenced on 05/01/1987 and the report was submitted to the disciplinary officer on 22/04/1987. The disciplinary officer agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and dismissed him from service. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority has committed gross illegality in dismissing the petitioner from service. It is submitted that the petitioner was only served with the charge sheet, however, list of witnesses, their statement in preliminary enquiry and list of documents on which the respondents relied for departmental proceedings are necessary to supply along with the charge sheet. The petitioner, on 13/12/1985 requested the respondents to supply list of documents, name of witnesses, their statement during preliminary enquiry and he also asserted positively that he will file reply to the charge sheet only after documents are inspected. He submits that for want of these material, the petitioner could not understand the exact charges which were leveled against him. He submits that the whole enquiry was conducted without the reply of the petitioner which is against the principles of natural justice. During the enquiry, the presenting officer supplied 83 documents and the enquiry officer asked the petitioner to inspect those documents on the same day within 1½ hrs. to which the petitioner raised objection. It is also submitted that defence of the petitioner was prejudiced by non-supply of several documents. It is further submitted that no show cause notice along with the report of enquiry officer was served upon the petitioner and on the basis of report, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner submitted appeal which was also dismissed on 19/02/1988. To buttress his submissions, Dr. Shukla placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of Ram Kishore Goutam v. State of M.P. (Now CG) reported in 2009 SCC Online Chh 447 and Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chakrdhar Singh v. SECL through 4 Managing Director, SECL and ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online Chh 297. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the list of witnesses and list of documents on which the Management relied in the departmental proceedings were supplied to the petitioner during the course of enquiry. He submits that the petitioner replied to all the charges and when the reply was not found satisfactory, the enquiry order was passed. It is submitted that the petitioner had not prayed for specific inspection of documents before submitting his reply and after waiting for a very long time, the disciplinary authority had issued order of enquiry. It is submitted that during the course of enquiry, the enquiry officer and the presenting officer were changed for administrative term and in no way prejudiced the rights of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner was given adequate time to inspect the documents and to submit his list of defence documents. It is further submitted that from the proceedings of enquiry dated 10/02/1987, it is evident that the petitioner and his defence assistant certified that they have inspected the documents listed in the list of documents of the presenting officer to their satisfaction. It is submitted that as some of the documents mentioned by the petitioner were not available/ traceable in the branch, the presenting officer showed his inability to produce the same. Lastly he submits that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case and he has fully availed the opportunities through his defence assistant. The enquiry officer has submitted a detailed report wherein he has appreciated each evidence produced by the parties and after appreciating the same, found the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. Shri Kazi in order to strengthen his submission placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588, order dated 13/10/2022 in Civil Appeal No.7257 of 2022, The State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh (dead) Thr. Lr. and a judgment of this Court dated 08/04/2013 passed in WP No.3036/2000 in the case of B.M.Das v. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India & ors. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Perusal of record indicates that at the relevant point of time, the deceased petitioner was working as Manager, Dabhra branch of the respondents. A charge 5 sheet dated 29/11/1985 was issued with the following allegations - A) In extending credit facilities, purported for Agricultural activities to a number of the borrowers, listed in Annexure -I under IRDP Scheme, you have contravened the Bank’s lending principles, norms and procedures as laid down in Branch Instructions Book Part II & III and circulars issued from time to time, so much so that you failed to - a) obtain photographs of the borrowers in almost all the cases inspite of the fact that they were illiterate persons; b) obtain "No due certificate" from other financial institutions operating in the area; c) get thumb impression of the borrowers on the relative loan application forms, M.C.RS., Vouchers etc. witnessed, d) obtain insurance cover even in a single case; e) Create and/or cause to create the Bank's proper and effective charge over assets acquired by the borrowers out of the Bank's funds lent to them; f) obtain A.F.O's pre-credit appraisal and recommendations and thereby violated clear and specific instructions contained in paragraph 90 and 107 of Branch Instruction Book Part-III which constitute important pre- conditions for consideration and sanction of agricultural loans, other than crop loans, by the Manager: y) verify proper end-use of the loans for which these were granted to the borrowers by obtaining documentary evidence like bills, cash memos/receipts etc. h) report the aforesaid advances to Regional Office, Bhopal with an intention to keep such irregular acts of yours concealed from your higher authorities. Such loans have been repaid/caused to be repaid either on the same day on which these were disbursed or within a very short period of 2 to 13 days thereof by lump sum with ulterior motive. It is beyond comprehension how the small/marginal farmers-borrowers could repay the respective loans within such a short time, particularly when they were aware that such 6 loans were repayable by instalments over a period of 3 years. B) You have irregularly allowed advances to borrowers listed in Annexure II purportedly for digging of well and purchase/installation of Diesel Pump sets. While doing so, you have failed to obtain A.F.O's pre-credit appraisal report and recommendations which is a condition precedent to consideration of such loans cases by the Branch Manager. Thus you have violated guidelines/instructions contained in paragraph 90 and 107 of Branch Instruction Book Part-III. Moreover, you have not reported the said advances to the Bank's Regional Office, Bhopal with ulterior motive of concealing the fact from the notice of your higher authorities. 7. By the said charges, it has been stated that the act of the petitioner is unbecoming of an officer of the Bank, therefore, the aforesaid action were in violation of Rule 3(1) and 3(3) of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and amounts to misconduct in terms of clause 24 of the said Regulations. The petitioner replied against the charges leveled against him. As his reply was not found satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the deceased petitioner. An enquiry officer was also appointed including a presenting officer. The deceased petitioner was also afforded opportunity to seek assistance of defence assistant. Thereafter, the enquiry ensued and after detailed enquiry, found the charges against the petitioner proved which led to passing of the impugned orders which has been further affirmed by the appellate authority. 8. The main grounds of learned counsel for the petitioner is that along with the charge sheet, the petitioner was not provided with the documents and list of witness. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice which makes the entire departmental enquiry vitiated. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Ram kishore (supra) in which this Court observed that when the petitioner was not supplied with necessary documents which were relied upon by the respondent authorities to establish the aforestated charges said to have been proved against the petitioner and the impugned orders in that regard were quashed. Contrary to this, the respondents have placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 7 Nachhattar Singh (dead) [supra]. In this case, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that mere non-supply of the documents which may not have resulted in any prejudice caused to the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside. There is no dispute to the fact that while issuing the charge sheet, the petitioner was not supplied with the documents relied upon by the respondents in the departmental enquiry. From perusal of the proceedings of the departmental enquiry appended to the writ petition, it is quite vivid that proper procedure have been followed by the enquiry officer. As stated above, the petitioner was also provided with the assistance of defence assistant. Objection with regard to non-supply of necessary documents was raised during the course of departmental enquiry which has been duly dealt with by the enquiry officer. Apart from this, the documents which has been relied upon in the departmental enquiry were permitted to be inspected by the deceased petitioner and his defence assistant and satisfaction to that effect has also been recorded. It goes to show that it is not a case that the deceased petitioner was not aware about the document which purportedly relied upon in the departmental enquiry. Rather, from the papers it is evidence that the deceased petitioner was offered to inspect and after due satisfaction, he participated in the departmental enquiry. Therefore, in the light of above, it cannot be said that the petitioner suffered any prejudice on account of non-supply of the documents at the time of issuance of charge sheet. Therefore, this Court does not find any force in the submission of Dr. Shukla that no document were supplied or caused prejudice to the petitioner or vitiated the departmental enquiry. 9. After conducting the departmental enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority, who in detail discussed the same and passed the impugned order considering the entire aspects of the matter. 10. The law with regard to judicial review in the findings of the departmental enquiry is well settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 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 8 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 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 re- appreciate 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.” 9 11. In the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as below - 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 are perverse or suffer 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. 25. XXXXXXX 26. XXXXXXX 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 10 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 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.” 12. 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. 13. Therefore, in the light of above, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference by this Court in the impugned orders. Therefore, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.10.08 11:15:55 +0530